“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 SWANK Dossier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK Dossier. Show all posts

Registered to Retaliate. — When Safeguarding Becomes a Weapon, and the Regulator’s Watching


⟡ Fabricated Referrals. Retaliatory Safeguarding. Complaint Filed. ⟡

“The harm described is not merely professional misconduct — it includes criminal-level coercion.”

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/CRIMINAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_SocialWorkEngland_CriminalSafeguardingMisuse_Complaint.pdf
A formal complaint to Social Work England requesting a regulatory investigation into retaliatory safeguarding threats, fabricated referrals, and misconduct by registered professionals. The misconduct was procedural. The harm was real.

I. What Happened

On 29 May 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., filed a formal complaint to Social Work Englandagainst practitioners involved in a pattern of safeguarding misuse.

The complaint outlines:

  • Fabricated safeguarding referrals made without statutory trigger

  • Unlawful interviews with children, conducted in violation of both consent and process

  • Retaliation for filing civil claims and police complaints

  • Obstruction of medical accommodations, including refusal to comply with a written-only communication policy

  • A coordinated multi-agency pattern of coercive, dishonest, and harassing behaviour

The complaint cites the following laws:

  • Children Act 1989

  • Fraud Act 2006

  • Human Rights Act 1998

  • Equality Act 2010

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That safeguarding was not a protection tool — it was a punishment mechanism

  • That the professionals involved used state systems to retaliate, not to protect

  • That legal escalation was met with procedural harassment

  • That Social Work England is now on notice — and on record

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the power to remove a child must never be retaliatory.
Because complaints must not trigger safeguarding threats.
Because any professional who fabricates protection concerns is unfit to practice — and fully fit to archive.

This is not emotional.
This is regulatory.
This is a complaint built for referral, oversight, and audit.
And now it belongs to the public.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding as code for surveillance.
We do not accept referrals without basis, interviews without consent, or regulation without accountability.
We do not accept that the professionals behind these harms are still registered.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the complaint is ignored,
The archive is not.
If the register protects misconduct,
We’ll publish what it shields.
And if silence follows this filing,
We’ll document that too.

⟡ 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