“What Exactly Am I Allegedly Failing to Comply With?”
⟡ A Formal Follow-Up to the Complaints Commission After Years of Fictional Noncompliance
IN THE MATTER OF: Official silence, safeguarding fiction, and the state’s bizarre refusal to issue instructions while accusing the parent of not following them
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 8 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-PRATT-HOMESCHOOLINGDEMAND
Court File Name: 2020-08-08_Records_PrattFollowUpPhoneCallAndHomeschoolDemands
Summary: This letter — written after a follow-up call with Willette Pratt of the Complaints Commission — outlines the complete absurdity of being accused of noncompliance when no written expectations have ever been provided. It clearly lists the outcomes Polly seeks, the statutory failures of both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education, and cites the relevant legal protections under UK homeschooling law. It is a bureaucratic crucifixion wrapped in velvet.
I. What Happened
On 7 August 2020, Willette Pratt phoned Polly to reiterate the need for “homeschooling compliance” by 31 August.
Polly responded — again — that she had already complied by meeting with Deputy Director Mark Garland in 2017 and submitting all required documentation.
Polly reiterated that her actual complaint was about procedural and legal misconduct by both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Education.
She listed 6 formal outcome requests, including:
Statutory investigation reports
An explanation for prolonged investigation timelines
A formal investigative review of the children’s forced hospitalisation and sexualised exams
A formal written letter from the Department of Education outlining homeschooling procedures
She enclosed an outline of UK homeschooling law, affirming that:
There is no requirement to follow the national curriculum or school hours
There is no legal obligation to notify the state of homeschooling
Home-educated children are not automatically vulnerable
II. What the Letter Establishes
That Polly has repeatedly asked for written procedures to ensure compliance — and been ignored
That no formal guidance has ever been provided from the Department of Education
That the safeguarding actions taken were not only disproportionate — they were dangerous
That the Department of Social Development appears to have operated without legal threshold
That Polly has been asked to follow rules that don’t exist, then blamed for not following them
That the state’s internal communication failure is now impacting a lawful educational arrangement
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because safeguarding cannot be used to coerce without providing legal basis. Because quoting UK homeschooling law to your own government should not be a requirement of being a mother. Because every time the state refuses to provide written instructions, it weaponises confusion. Because Willette Pratt’s polite concern cannot substitute for actual policy. Because this letter isn’t just a summary — it’s a referendum on bureaucratic irresponsibility.
IV. Violations
Denial of written procedural guidance
Procedural retaliation disguised as safeguarding
Absence of statutory reports after repeated safeguarding visits
Illegal clinical examination of children without informed consent
Fabricated truancy threat despite homeschool approval
Breach of due process and parental rights under UK homeschooling frameworks
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this document as an encyclopaedic demonstration of lawful resistance. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That no parent should be harassed while waiting for instructions the state refuses to provide
That quoting law is not defiance — it’s diligence
That safeguarding based on bureaucratic silence is not lawful — it’s retaliatory
That compliance requires clarity, not improvisation
That this letter is not a request for clarification — it is a formal rebuke of institutional failure
⟡ 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.