⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – GLEN PEACHE (SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND) ⟡
Filed: June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PEACHE-COMPLAINT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06_Core_PC-128_SWE_GlenPeacheFormalComplaint.pdf
Summary: A formal complaint to Social Work England (SWE) regarding the retaliatory conduct, procedural escalation, and ethical breaches of Glen Peache, registered social worker. The complaint exposes a recurrent institutional pathology — the safeguarding reflex: the automatic conversion of justified complaint into administrative revenge.
I. What Happened
Filed by Polly Chromatic, the complaint details a sequence of retaliatory behaviour by social worker Glen Peache, including:
• misuse of safeguarding powers following medical complaints;
• disregard for written medical accommodations;
• procedural escalation during periods of confirmed illness; and
• distortion of welfare records contrary to documented evidence.
The complaint is not merely a grievance — it is a microcosm of institutional dysfunction: how the machinery of “care” can be weaponised against those it purports to protect.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That SWE registrants, including Peache, are repeatedly breaching disability and equality law through negligent or retaliatory practice.
• That safeguarding investigations are being deployed as punitive mechanisms, timed directly after legitimate health or procedural disclosures.
• That the harm extends beyond administrative inconvenience — it is emotional, medical, and intergenerational.
• That professional regulation, in its current form, serves the practitioner more than the public.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To ensure that Glen Peache’s actions are not quarantined as an “isolated case” but recognised as part of a national pattern.
• To record that retaliation against disabled parents is not theoretical — it is operational.
• To demonstrate that SWANK’s evidentiary archive functions as both witness and tribunal.
• Because ethics, once violated in practice, must be immortalised in prose.
IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework
Statutory References
• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 15, 19, and 20: discrimination arising from disability and failure to accommodate.
• Children Act 1989 — misuse of safeguarding authority.
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14: degrading treatment, fair process, respect for private life, and discrimination.
Professional Standards – SWE (2021)
1.4 – Act with honesty and integrity.
2.1 – Communicate appropriately and respectfully.
3.4 – Maintain clear professional boundaries.
5.2 – Challenge and report poor practice.
V. SWANK’s Position
“Retaliation is the bureaucracy’s reflex to being held accountable.”
SWANK London Ltd. holds that Glen Peache’s conduct exemplifies the decay of professional ethics under pressure — when confronted with oversight, the practitioner retaliated rather than reflected.
What should have been safeguarding became surveillance; what should have been care became coercion.
This complaint is therefore not personal; it is jurisdictional. It situates misconduct within its natural habitat — the paper trail.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because ethics deserve record.
And retaliation deserves reputation.