🦚 A Formal Complaint Regarding Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mango: A Case Study in Procedural Improvisation, Disregard for Medical Reality, and Fictionalised Assessment
Filed under the solemn documentation of bureaucratic storytelling masquerading as safeguarding.
2025.04.03
To: complaints@rbkc.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Mr Earl Bullhead and Ms Jane Mango – A Case Study in Procedural Improvisation, Disregard for Medical Reality, and Fictionalised Assessment
🧾 Dear RBKC Complaints Department,
It is with yet another sigh of administrative fatigue that I submit this formal complaint concerning the conduct of Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mango, both employed within RBKC Children's Services.
Their involvement in my family’s case during July 2023 exemplifies a style of social work that is not merely flawed —
but performative, harmful, and steeped in bureaucratic fiction.
📜 Scene One: Interrogations in the Garden, Followed by Silence Indoors
Without prior notice, consent, or regard for safeguarding context:
Mr. Bullhead conducted solo interrogations of my children — P and K — in a communal garden, in full public view.
The consequences were immediate:
Visible distress;
Asthma attacks, necessitating at-home nebuliser intervention.
Meanwhile, indoors:
Ms. Mango engaged me;
Photographed legal name change documentation;
Offered to assist with next procedural steps —
Assistance which never materialised.
The offer evaporated.
The photographs, one assumes, remain undisturbed in an unmonitored inbox.
📜 Scene Two: The Fictional Assessment
The co-authored assessment by Mr. Bullhead and Ms. Mango includes the spectacularly false assertion that I "yell at my children" — a claim that is:
Medically implausible;
Factually unsupported;
Procedurally fabricated.
I suffer from:
Eosinophilic asthma;
Muscle tension dysphonia;
Both conditions render loud vocal projection not only improbable but medically injurious.
Nevertheless, this convenient fiction has since been:
Echoed by other professionals;
Embedded into case records;
Snowballed into bureaucratic mythology —
without so much as a gesture toward verification.
Adding further procedural insult:
I was denied access to the assessment for three months,
during which time it circulated without my knowledge, review, or rebuttal.
📚 Consequences and Concerns
Their conduct has produced:
| Consequence | Description |
|---|---|
| Physical harm | Distress-induced asthma attacks requiring emergency management. |
| Emotional distress | For the entire family, driven by falsehoods and procedural betrayal. |
| Systemic harm | False claims embedded and reproduced without scrutiny. |
| Erasure of due process | Parental voice entirely excluded from documentation and review. |
What should have been safeguarding became speculative fiction.
🩻 Relief Requested
Accordingly, I respectfully request that RBKC:
Conduct a formal investigation into the conduct of Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mango, with particular focus on the validity of their assessment and its procedural handling;
Provide an explanation for the withholding of the assessment and its circulation without parental review or consent;
Acknowledge the medical impossibility of the claims made and issue a formal correction to the case file;
Offer a written response that addresses the harms caused and outlines immediate corrective steps.
📜 Closing Remarks
This is not merely a complaint about misconduct.
It is an observation that truth, fairness, and even basic medical science appear to be optional components within RBKC’s child and family assessments.
That Mr. Bullhead and Ms. Mango were permitted to construct an official narrative based on hearsay, selective omission, and speculative prose is:
Not merely unprofessional;
It is institutionally dangerous.
What was required was accuracy.
What was delivered was bureaucratic theatre presented as care.
I await your formal reply.
Yours (unfortunately, yet again),
Polly