⟡ “We Received Your Complaint About Professional Misconduct. This Is an Auto-Response.” ⟡
Safeguarding Is Urgent. Processing Your Concern Is Not.
Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/AUTO-RESPONSE-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Response_SocialWorkEngland_DoNotReplyAutoNotice.pdf
Auto-generated reply from Social Work England following formal referral of three officials accused of criminal safeguarding misconduct.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a formal referral with Social Work England regarding misconduct by three named officials at Westminster Children’s Services. The referral cited unlawful removal of four children, failure to accommodate disability, and retaliation for lawful legal action. In return, Social Work England responded with an automated message containing no reference to the complaint, no case number, and no acknowledgment of urgency — just a warning not to follow up.
II. What the Auto-Reply Establishes
There is no triage mechanism for urgent safeguarding-based referrals
The language used prioritises administrative workflow over child welfare
The regulator disclaims responsibility for safeguarding despite being the fitness-to-practise authority
The email does not confirm receipt, assign a reference, or acknowledge the content of the concern
Structural indifference is digitally templated — and institutionally endorsed
This was not a response. It was an autoresponder programmed for reputational insulation.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when your complaint concerns criminal abuse of power and your reply is "please don’t send more emails," the problem isn’t volume — it’s values.
Because institutions now operate with inboxes, not consciences.
Because no parent should have to prove that retaliation occurred and that it matters to the regulator.
Because the moment a regulator automates dismissal, they have automated complicity.
Because this message didn’t say "we’re reviewing" — it said don’t disrupt our delay.
IV. Violations
Social Work England Statutory Responsibilities – Failure to engage with public protection concerns
Children Act 1989 – Refusal to respond to live safeguarding dispute involving four minors
Equality Act 2010 – Implicit procedural discrimination through inaccessible redress
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 13 – Right to effective remedy
Data and Procedural Transparency Regulations – Lack of complaint confirmation or tracking
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t communication. It was an institutional reflex of deferral.
This wasn’t administration. It was protocol used to avoid proximity to the harmed.
This wasn’t delay. It was a message from within the system: “you are interrupting us by surviving.”
SWANK does not treat auto-replies as harmless.
We treat them as exhibits.
This wasn’t silence. It was mechanised indifference — and we logged it.
⟡ 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.
⟡ 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.