Featured post

⟡ CHILDREN STILL HELD ⟡

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — four U.S. citizens — were unlawfully seized by Westminster on 23 June 2025. No contact. No updates. ...

“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label Misuse of Safeguarding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misuse of Safeguarding. Show all posts

Safeguarding by Sabotage: When Parents Complain, Westminster Escalates


⟡ “When You Retaliate for Complaints, That’s Not Safeguarding — That’s Sabotage” ⟡
A statutory dissection of Westminster’s discriminatory misconduct, procedural breakdown, and the emotional collateral left in its wake.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_PLO_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to Westminster Council citing unlawful disability discrimination, PLO retaliation, and safeguarding misuse by Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal — supported by legal evidence, medical records, and a digital archive.

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a comprehensive complaint to Westminster City Council. The letter detailed a sequence of events that exposes Westminster’s PLO engagement as procedurally hollow, legally discriminatory, and retaliatory in design.

Key issues include:

  • Ignoring written communication mandates backed by clinical reports

  • Escalating to PLO after a social worker admitted there were no active safeguarding concerns

  • Causing respiratory illness and education disruption following sewer gas poisoning

  • Misrepresenting children’s emotional states contrary to recorded and participatory evidence

  • Withholding or omitting key evidence from internal records and correspondence

This isn’t just administrative oversight — it’s institutional defamation with statutory consequences.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

  • Safeguarding used as reprisal for complaints to hospitals and regulators

  • Emotional and educational harm to children caused by statutory harassment

  • Failure to document, disclose, or correct internal evidence

  • Public authority conduct marked by omission, escalation, and bad faith

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is a canonical example of how public bodies convert complaint defence into safeguarding attack. Westminster responded to regulatory accountability not with reform, but with escalation. The family's health, education, and stability were sacrificed to preserve procedural face.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

  • Publicly expose Westminster’s weaponisation of PLO against a disabled parent

  • Document retaliation patterns following formal complaints

  • Build a foundation for Judicial Review, EHRC submission, and ombudsman proceedings

This isn’t just about what was done. It’s about how predictable, avoidable, and cruel it all was.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation), Section 149 (public duty)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 22 (welfare of the child), misuse of child protection powers

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair process), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

  • UK GDPR – Failure to correct inaccurate data, omission of parent-supplied evidence

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3 (best interests), Article 12 (right to be heard)

V. SWANK’s Position

When a safeguarding investigation is offered to be closed, then escalated a month later with no new facts — that’s not protection. That’s punishment. When you misreport a child’s emotional wellbeing while ignoring medical crises and cultural context, you don’t deserve public trust. You deserve public audit.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • A formal internal investigation into both named officers

  • An official apology for discrimination, retaliation, and family harm

  • Written-only communication as standard protocol going forward

  • Full data transparency and procedural accountability under UK public law

⟡ 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.
No comments: