“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label SWANK complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK complaint. Show all posts

Safeguarding by Sabotage: When Parents Complain, Westminster Escalates


⟡ “When You Retaliate for Complaints, That’s Not Safeguarding — That’s Sabotage” ⟡
A statutory dissection of Westminster’s discriminatory misconduct, procedural breakdown, and the emotional collateral left in its wake.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_PLO_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to Westminster Council citing unlawful disability discrimination, PLO retaliation, and safeguarding misuse by Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal — supported by legal evidence, medical records, and a digital archive.

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a comprehensive complaint to Westminster City Council. The letter detailed a sequence of events that exposes Westminster’s PLO engagement as procedurally hollow, legally discriminatory, and retaliatory in design.

Key issues include:

  • Ignoring written communication mandates backed by clinical reports

  • Escalating to PLO after a social worker admitted there were no active safeguarding concerns

  • Causing respiratory illness and education disruption following sewer gas poisoning

  • Misrepresenting children’s emotional states contrary to recorded and participatory evidence

  • Withholding or omitting key evidence from internal records and correspondence

This isn’t just administrative oversight — it’s institutional defamation with statutory consequences.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

  • Safeguarding used as reprisal for complaints to hospitals and regulators

  • Emotional and educational harm to children caused by statutory harassment

  • Failure to document, disclose, or correct internal evidence

  • Public authority conduct marked by omission, escalation, and bad faith

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is a canonical example of how public bodies convert complaint defence into safeguarding attack. Westminster responded to regulatory accountability not with reform, but with escalation. The family's health, education, and stability were sacrificed to preserve procedural face.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

  • Publicly expose Westminster’s weaponisation of PLO against a disabled parent

  • Document retaliation patterns following formal complaints

  • Build a foundation for Judicial Review, EHRC submission, and ombudsman proceedings

This isn’t just about what was done. It’s about how predictable, avoidable, and cruel it all was.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation), Section 149 (public duty)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 22 (welfare of the child), misuse of child protection powers

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair process), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

  • UK GDPR – Failure to correct inaccurate data, omission of parent-supplied evidence

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3 (best interests), Article 12 (right to be heard)

V. SWANK’s Position

When a safeguarding investigation is offered to be closed, then escalated a month later with no new facts — that’s not protection. That’s punishment. When you misreport a child’s emotional wellbeing while ignoring medical crises and cultural context, you don’t deserve public trust. You deserve public audit.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • A formal internal investigation into both named officers

  • An official apology for discrimination, retaliation, and family harm

  • Written-only communication as standard protocol going forward

  • Full data transparency and procedural accountability under UK public law

⟡ 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:

You Called It Erratic. It Was Oxygen Deprivation and Institutional Racism.


⟡ SWANK Racial Misconduct Filing ⟡

“They Called the Collapse ‘Mental Illness.’ We Filed the Pattern.”
Filed: 30 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RACE-RETALIATION/2024-10-30
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-30_SWANK_WestminsterComplaint_RaceBullying_ErraticLabelingRetaliation.pdf

I. Breathing Was Difficult. So They Called It Erratic.

On 30 October 2024, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal complaint to Westminster City Council, documenting a pattern of racialised bullying and weaponised psychiatric labelling used to retaliate against a disabled Black parent resisting coercive safeguarding.

The location: A&E.
The condition: Asthma, distress, and oxygen deprivation.
The label applied: “Erratic.”

This is what institutional racism sounds like:
Not slurs. Not screams.
Mild terms applied at the precise moment you cannot speak.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • That while experiencing a respiratory episode in hospital, the parent was labelled mentally unwell

  • That this label was later echoed by Westminster social workers — despite medical records confirming asthma and trauma

  • That staff (including Kirsty Hornal, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Rachel Pullen, and Sarah Newman) enabled a narrative of instability rather than acknowledging harm

  • That this pattern mirrors colonial psychiatry: weaponising mental illness to erase inconvenient voices

This wasn’t concern.
It was containment — in language.

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because “erratic” is not neutral.
Because silence isn’t passive — it’s strategic omission.

We filed this to expose:

  • The procedural laundering of race-based harm

  • The weaponisation of diagnosis without evaluation

  • The use of safeguarding not to protect, but to pathologise those who refuse institutional submission

This wasn’t misunderstanding.
It was reputational retaliation — disguised as mental health concern.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept mental health euphemisms as tools of state control.
We do not permit oxygen deprivation to be filed as instability.
We do not allow racism to wear a pastel badge of care.

Let the record show:

We were harmed.
We were labelled.
And now we have filed the entire pattern — with names, context, and timestamps.

This is not a complaint.
It is a racial record.
And now, it 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:

They Lied to a Disabled Child. Four Were Withdrawn.


⟡ SWANK Educational Abuse Record ⟡

“The School Called It Safeguarding. We Call It Abuse.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/ISLINGTON/DRAYTON/2025-05-21
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_DraytonParkComplaint_Islington_SafeguardingAbuse_DisabilityWithdrawal.pdf

I. They Lied to a Disabled Child. So Four Were Withdrawn.

On 21 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint against Drayton Park Primary School and Islington Council, documenting a safeguarding incident that was not protective, but predatory.

The incident:

  • Targeted a child with a documented disability

  • Fabricated a concern in order to isolate and interrogate him

  • Misrepresented medical information

  • And ignored lawful communication adjustments already on file

This was not concern.
It was coercion.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • A false safeguarding claim invented without threshold

  • Unlawful contact with a vulnerable child, conducted without parental knowledge or consent

  • Emotional harm to the child — including visible confusion, stress symptoms, and fear of speaking

  • Total breakdown of trust across educational staff, prompting the full withdrawal of four children

The complaint identifies this not as a mistake, but a pattern:

Using safeguarding to punish refusal. To police disability. To silence complaint.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because educational safeguarding is not above the law.
Because abuse does not become care simply by being entered into a database.
Because harm dressed in procedure is still harm.

We filed this because:

  • The child’s diagnosis was ignored

  • The mother's written-only adjustment was bypassed

  • The entire family’s medical and legal security was destabilised by a single lie

  • And Islington Council failed to intervene — not due to confusion, but design

This complaint exists because the system gambled on silence.
It lost.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not allow schools to weaponise safeguarding as disciplinary revenge.
We do not permit councils to supervise lies in lieu of learning.
We do not sacrifice children to public relations.

Let the record show:

The school acted without cause.
The council permitted it.
The children were withdrawn.
And now, the archive holds the evidence.

This isn’t just a school incident.
It is an institutional failure.
And now it’s timestamped, recorded, and indexed — by us.

⟡ 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: