⟡ The Regulator Who Redirected You to the Manager You Were Reporting ⟡
“We suggest you report the fire to the person who lit it.”
Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/DISPLACEMENT-REPLY-CRIMINAL-HARM
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_SocialWorkEngland_DisplacementReply.pdf
Social Work England declines to acknowledge formal complaints against five named social workers, advising the complainant to raise concerns “locally” — with the very institutions named in the complaint.
⟡ Chromatic v SWE: On the Bureaucratic Sophistry of Regulated Deregulation ⟡
SWE, referral redirection, complaint displacement, safeguarding abuse, regulatory evasion, procedural gaslighting, written-only breach, jurisdictional abdication
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Social Work England’s Enquiries Team responded to a formal complaint submitted by Polly Chromatic (under legal name), which detailed serious misconduct by five named social workers, including documented racial bias, disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, and procedural harassment.
Rather than confirm receipt or trigger investigation, SWE advised the complainant to contact the social workers’ employers — i.e., the very councils named in the criminal and civil proceedings.
Despite the complaints being accompanied by legal filings (N1, JR, medical reports), SWE issued only a general referral to their website and advised that the complainant re-check what SWE does and does not investigate.
II. What the Email Establishes
⟡ Procedural abdication disguised as triage
⟡ Referral displacement to known bad actors
⟡ Ignoring structural and criminal context in favour of template workflow
⟡ Complete failure to honour confirmed written-only adjustments
⟡ Institutional loyalty to format over function
This wasn’t regulation. It was regulatory exile.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is the crescendo of what regulators do best: refer you back to the source of harm under the illusion of neutrality. Because telling a complainant to raise safeguarding abuse with the very officers abusing it is not “procedure.” It is juridical betrayal.
SWANK does not send complaints in hope of outcome.
We send them for record.
And we archive the refusal as evidence of complicity.
IV. Legal & Procedural Failures
Equality Act 2010 — failure to respect communication adjustments
HRA 1998, Article 6 — denial of fair access to oversight mechanisms
Public Law breach — displacement of jurisdiction amid active litigation
Regulatory responsibility breach — SWE’s statutory function rendered symbolic
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t triage. It was polite flight.
This wasn’t redirection. It was regulatory retreat.
SWANK does not recognise a regulator that refers safeguarding complaints back to the safeguarding abusers.
We do not accept template referrals to websites in lieu of justice.
And we do not dignify institutional neutrality where structural violence is already on file.
⟡ 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.