“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 educational filing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK educational filing. Show all posts

They Didn’t Attack Our Lessons. They Attacked My Voice.



⟡ SWANK Educational Complaint Record ⟡

“Lawful Education. Unlawful Retaliation. We Filed It With the DfE.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/DFE/HOME-ED/2025-05-23
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_DfEComplaint_HomeEducation_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf


I. They Didn’t Question the Children’s Education. They Questioned the Parent’s Illness.

On 23 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint with the Department for Education documenting harassment, procedural intrusion, and retaliatory safeguarding threats against a disabled home-educating parent.

The issue was not curriculum.
The issue was control.

The education was legal.
The provision was adequate.
The parent was disabled.
That, apparently, was the threat.


II. What the Complaint States

This complaint makes clear that:

  • The parent was harassed not for what she taught, but for refusing phone calls and unlawful visits

  • Disability adjustments (including written-only communication and medical exemptions) were treated as noncompliance

  • Children’s Services in Westminster and RBKC escalated safeguarding after the parent asserted legal rights

  • Education officers attempted backdoor surveillance via social work pathways, bypassing statutory thresholds

This was not about child welfare.
It was about punishing refusal to perform obedience.


III. Why This Filing Was Necessary

Because home education is legal.
Because disability is not suspicion.
Because safeguarding is not meant to discipline dissent.

This complaint asserts:

  • That lawful education became grounds for institutional stalking

  • That social services were used as an enforcement arm of tone policing

  • That what began as a request for information devolved into a threat

We did not wait for them to escalate again.
We filed the facts.
And now they are in the archive.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not justify legal education.
We expect the law to do that.
We do not apologise for disability adjustments.
We enforce them.

Let the record show:

The children were learning.
The state was watching.
And now the Department for Education is on formal notice.

This is no longer a misunderstanding.
It is a documented case of educational retaliation through procedural misuse.


⟡ 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.



Documented Obsessions