⟡ She Sent Them a Guide to Ethics. They Left It Unread. ⟡
When the only professional development offered is by the person they’re targeting.
Filed: 12 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/EMAIL-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-12_SWANK_Email_GlenPeache_EthicsGuide_To_CouncilStaff_DisabilityMisconductContext.pdf
A precise and quietly eviscerating email sent by the parent to council staff and legal representatives, offering a structured guide to ethical behaviour — because none had been demonstrated. Not a plea. Not a threat. Just ten universal principles of moral conduct — sent from the target to her investigators.
I. What Happened
After months of disability dismissal, procedural gaslighting, and boundary invasion,
she took a new approach:
– No accusation.
– No complaint.
– Just an unsolicited ethics syllabus.
She CC’d every relevant actor — Glen Peache, Sarah Newman, Kirsty Hornal, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Eric Wedge-Bull, Annabelle Kapoor, Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara.
She included sections on:
– Honesty, fairness, and justice
– Confidentiality, accountability, and environmental responsibility
– Courage, humility, and professional integrity
They replied to none of it.
II. What the Email Establishes
That the parent attempted a professional and educational intervention in response to misconduct
That the message was ignored by all parties — including legal counsel and safeguarding leads
That institutional actors were directly offered ethical standards — and declined the invitation to engage
That ethical clarity came only from the person being surveilled
That no one currently involved in the case could claim ignorance of right conduct after this point
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because when a parent writes a ten-point code of ethics and no one replies,
it says everything.
Because this was the most polite form of confrontation ever sent.
And because offering grace to your accusers — and watching them ignore it —
makes the misconduct even clearer.
IV. Violations Identified
Institutional Refusal to Acknowledge or Respond to Ethical Accountability Request
Multi-Agency Disregard for Non-Hostile Communication from Targeted Individual
Erosion of Professional Standards in Legal and Safeguarding Practice
Complicity by Inaction Following Ethical Clarification
Dismissal of Trauma-Informed and Educational Intervention Attempt
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t an email.
It was a final offer.
A last attempt to appeal to their decency —
and they proved, by silence, they had none.
If this is what gets ignored,
then they’ve chosen misconduct.
Consciously.
Would you like this filed under your Professional Incompetence Chronicle and linked to the Council-wide Ethics Blackout series?⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.