“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 Rhiannon Hodgson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhiannon Hodgson. Show all posts

When Ethics Breach Procedure, We File to the Regulator


⟡ The Social Worker Who Retaliated Against My Medical Records ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HODGSON-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_RhiannonHodgson_DisabilityMisconduct_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf

I. When Ethics Breach Procedure, We File to the Regulator

This complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Rhiannon Hodgson, whose decisions directly violated:

  • Documented disability adjustments

  • Medical confidentiality

  • The ethical framework of lawful safeguarding

  • SWANK’s Written Communication Policy — ignored without hesitation

This was not casework.
It was reputational assassination under institutional badge.

II. What She Knew — and What She Did Anyway

At the time of her actions, Ms Hodgson:

  • Possessed full documentation of medical trauma, adjustment policies, and PTSD-related restrictions

  • Proceeded to call, escalate, and report without lawful cause

  • Initiated risk frameworks while ignoring the risk she posed

  • Positioned herself as “support” while functioning as state witness for retaliation

The files were clear.
She crossed them anyway.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because safeguarding is not a blunt instrument for punishment.
Because the moment a social worker sees medical documentation and escalates instead of adapts, they are no longer acting in care — but in coercion.
Because what they call “professional concern,” we call disability violation in report format.

Let the record show:

  • The actions were not protective

  • The behaviour was discriminatory

  • The process was retaliatory

  • And SWANK — filed, formatted, and named it for the public record

This isn’t a performance review.
It’s a regulator-grade transcript of ethical failure.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit professionals to violate disability law and hide behind “multidisciplinary team” dynamics.
We do not treat safeguarding as a shield for misconduct.
We do not redact names when harm is formatted.

Let the record show:

The adjustment was ignored.
The reports were retaliatory.
The ethics were breached.
And SWANK — filed what the courts will soon recognise.

This is not safeguarding.
It’s malpractice under a statutory header — and we filed it first.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions