“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
Showing posts with label RBKC complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RBKC complaint. Show all posts

I Escalated. Because They Pretended It Was Over.


⟡ SWANK Council Misconduct Ledger ⟡

“They Called It Closure. I Called It Retaliation.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/STAGE2/RETALIATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_RBKC_Complaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan_DisabilityRetaliation_Stage2.pdf

I. When They Close the Complaint, It’s Because the Complaint Was Accurate.

This formal Stage 2 escalation was filed with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), naming two officers — Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan — for their direct involvement in:

  • Retaliatory handling of a disability complaint

  • Breach of written communication adjustments

  • Misrepresentation of safeguarding chronology

  • Procedural closure without lawful resolution

They attempted to end a process that was only beginning.

We responded by escalating it into the archive.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Officer Wedge-Bull and Officer Troyan:

    • Ignored clinical evidence

    • Mischaracterised safeguarding referrals

    • Silenced complaint progression by strategic inaction

  • Their conduct included:

    • Failure to apply disability adjustments

    • Cooperative minimisation of harm

    • Obfuscation of RBKC safeguarding misconduct

  • This was not a failure of communication.

It was a coordinated decision to terminate complaint visibility.

You asked for accountability.
They sent a closing statement.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “Stage 2” is not an appeal.
It is an escalation into formality, visibility, and jurisdiction.

We filed this because:

  • Complaints about misconduct are not resolved by silence

  • Disability retaliation is not softened by tone

  • Public officers do not get to declare their own exoneration

Let the record show:

  • The original complaint was legitimate

  • The closure was performative

  • The response was escalation — and publication

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not tolerate complaints erased for convenience.
We do not accept closure without resolution.
We do not allow local authorities to disguise retaliation as “response.”

Let the record show:

The complaint was real.
The injury was clinical.
The officers were named.
And now — they are archived.

This wasn’t a conclusion.
It was a bureaucratic tantrum in paragraph form.

And SWANK has now added its reply — in public, in full, and in 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.


No comments:

Public Pools. Private Profiling. Filed to RBKC.


⟡ SWANK Local Authority Complaint ⟡

“She Was Swimming Fine Until They Saw Her Face.”
Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/PORCHESTER/2025-05-31
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_RBKCComplaint_PorchesterHall_Discrimination_ChildSwimming.pdf

I. Leisure, Until You’re Not the Right Kind of Child

On 31 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal complaint to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) regarding an act of direct and discriminatory conduct at Porchester Hall Leisure Centre.

The victim:
A Black child.
Age 11.
Calm. Respectful. Swimming under supervision.

The problem:

She didn’t “look old enough.”
So she was removed.
Without precedent. Without inquiry. Without justification.

II. What the Complaint States

This was not about safety.
This was about visible difference and assumed defiance.

The complaint outlines:

  • Unlawful removal from the pool despite safe, observed behaviour

  • Racialised assumptions about age, defiance, and “compliance”

  • Prior inclusion in the same session under identical circumstances

  • No attempt to contact or verify with the parent (who was present)

  • A direct statement by staff implying age was “obvious from her look”

Let us be clear:

What changed was not her behaviour.
What changed was who saw her.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because public leisure spaces are not exempt from discrimination law.
Because leisure does not mean license to profile.
Because dignity is not age-restricted.

This complaint makes clear:

  • The child was compliant.

  • The parent was present.

  • The reason was perception, not policy.

We filed it so that what occurred at Porchester Hall is recorded, named, and impossible to dismiss as a misunderstanding.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not teach our daughters that their existence is disruptive.
We do not let white public servants define defiance by skin tone.
We do not walk away quietly from leisure centres that remove children with a glance and a shrug.

Let the record show:

She swam without harm.
She was told to leave anyway.
And now it’s a matter of formal complaint.

This is not petty.
This is patterned.
And it now lives in the archive.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions