The Safeguarding Was the Retaliation. This Was the Legal Notice.

---

⟡ “We Filed a Legal Complaint. They Scheduled a Meeting.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Submits Formal Complaint to RBKC and Westminster Monitoring Officer for Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Discrimination, and Statutory Breach

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_MonitoringOfficerComplaint_RBKC_Westminster_DisabilitySafeguardingStatutoryBreach.pdf
Summary: Formal Monitoring Officer complaint citing unlawful conduct and maladministration by named social workers, including PLO retaliation and failure to honour legal disability adjustments.

---

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a complaint under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The complaint alleges:

• Retaliation via safeguarding procedures (CIN and PLO) directly after lawful complaints and SARs

• Repeated violations of a psychiatrist-certified written-only adjustment

• Misuse of statutory meetings and coercive intervention

• Failure to act on serious sewer gas-related housing risk and medical letters

• Named staff: Kirsty Hornal, Glen Peache, Edward Kendall, Rhiannon Hodgson, and unnamed management

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• PLO was triggered as a direct response to complaint activity
• Disability adjustments from Dr. Irfan Rafiq were ignored
• Environmental harm was excluded from reports and decisions
• Legal meeting procedure violated both the Equality Act 2010 and voluntariness guidance
• The complaint activates the Monitoring Officer’s statutory duty to investigate unlawful or maladministrative conduct

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Monitoring Officers are the legal stopgaps for systemic harm — and most never act until the archive proves they failed.
Because this wasn’t a complaint. It was a legal trigger.
Because the Council escalated after this — confirming its truth.

SWANK archives the moment the legal system was told — and chose silence.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that complaints invite safeguarding.
We do not accept that psychiatrists’ medical orders are optional.
We do not accept that officers can bypass law by calling it concern.

This wasn’t care. It was coordinated misconduct — and this was the formal record of warning.

---

⟡ 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.

From Complaint to Threat: What Happened After We Spoke

---

⟡ “We Complained. They Retaliated. So We Filed.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Files Formal Complaint With Social Work England Against Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for Disability Discrimination, Safeguarding Retaliation, and Misrepresentation

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_SWEComplaint_KirstyHornal_SamBrown_PLO_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Formal referral to Social Work England citing repeated professional breaches by Westminster Children’s Services staff in response to lawful complaints and medical disclosure.

---

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England, detailing:

– Receipt of a Public Law Outline (PLO) letter on 14 April from Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown
– That this PLO action contradicted previous written statements that the investigation was voluntary
– That the escalation followed parental complaints and medical disclosures
– That allegations in the letter were factually false, discriminatory, and retaliatory

Supporting evidence includes:

• Emails from Kirsty Hornal contradicting the PLO’s allegations

• Proof of disability and communication adjustment notices

• Video and medical documentation showing stability and institutional harm

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• The PLO was issued immediately after formal complaints were submitted
• Westminster staff refused disability accommodations (written-only contact)
• The allegations in the PLO were false, defamatory, or knowingly misleading
• SWE Professional Standards were violated, including:

• Standard 1.2, 2.5, 5.1: Communication, dignity, non-discrimination

• Standard 5.5: Retaliation after complaints

• Standard 3.11: Recordkeeping accuracy

• Standard 6.2: Duty to challenge internal wrongdoing
  • The complaint demands a full regulatory investigation into retaliation and abuse of power

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliation escalated through safeguarding is not protection — it's coercion.
Because when disability is ignored and weaponised, that’s not support — it’s obstruction.
Because no one believes it until the complaint is typed, timestamped, and archived.

SWANK logs not just injustice — but the moment the complaint turned into a timeline.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be triggered as punishment for legal complaints.
We do not accept that medical needs must be repeatedly stated to be respected.
We do not accept that professionals can invent harm, then call it concern.

This wasn’t social work. It was legal retaliation.
And SWANK will document every licensed professional who blurred that line.

---

⟡ 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.

Your Harm Has Been Logged. Estimated Resolution: Unknown.

---

⟡ “Your Complaint Has Been Logged — Now Please Wait Indefinitely.” ⟡
Social Work England Acknowledges Email Harassment by a Social Worker — and Files It for Later

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_SWE_CasePT10413_SamBrownComplaintQueued.pdf
Summary: Social Work England confirms a formal complaint against Sam Brown is active (Case PT-10413), but cannot provide a timeline for triage or investigation.

---

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, a formal Fitness to Practise complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding Sam Brown, a social worker at Westminster Children’s Services. The complaint cited repeated encrypted email contact despite a written-only medical adjustment, constituting email harassment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory behaviour.

Social Work England responded on 29 May 2025, confirming the complaint had been logged as Case PT-10413 and is awaiting triage. No timeline was provided. The complainant was informed that they would be contacted eventually for confirmation and further evidence.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability-adjusted communication requests are being ignored by state social workers
• Sam Brown made contact via encrypted platforms after being explicitly instructed not to
• Social Work England acknowledges the behaviour as triage-worthy, but imposes open-ended delay
• The system has no urgency protocol for retaliatory abuse related to legal proceedings
• Complaints about safeguarding retaliation are treated as passive case files, not active protection needs

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even when a professional regulator receives evidence of harassment and rights violation, the institutional response is still a queue.
Because the role of a regulator should be to intervene, not to monitor from a distance while misconduct continues.
Because when fitness to practise systems cannot move quickly in cases involving retaliation, they become complicit through inaction.

SWANK archives the moment a regulator nodded — and then paused.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a formal complaint involving harassment and medical adjustment breaches can be deferred indefinitely.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation should be handled on a first-come, first-assigned basis.
We do not accept that state social workers can weaponise encrypted platforms with impunity.

This wasn’t triage. This was procedural stalling.
And SWANK will document every day between “we received it” and “we acted.”

---

⟡ 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.