“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 SWE complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWE complaint. Show all posts

SWANK v SWE: Formal Complaint Receives Auto-Reply Directing to Fee Consultation and Public Website


⟡ “You Raised Concerns About Criminal Safeguarding Abuse. They Gave You a Link About Fee Changes.” ⟡
This Wasn’t an Acknowledgement. It Was a Bureaucratic Deflection — Filed With Velvet Disdain and Timestamped Absurdity.

Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/NORESPONSE-AUTOEVADE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_AutoReply_SWE_NoResponseToFitnessComplaint.pdf
Auto-response received from Social Work England after submitting a formal misconduct and fitness to practise complaint against multiple social workers implicated in retaliatory safeguarding actions and jurisdictional misconduct.

I. What Happened

On 28 May 2025 at 19:34, Social Work England sent an automatic response to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint submission, in which she documented:

  • Retaliatory safeguarding actions

  • Structural disability discrimination

  • Falsification of records

  • Collusion across borough authorities

The auto-reply:

  • Provided no reference number

  • Contained no acknowledgement of the submitted evidence

  • Redirected the complainant to fee consultation pages and general FAQs

  • Explicitly discouraged follow-up or additional messages

It concluded with: “Please do not reply to this email. It is automatically generated.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Social Work England’s frontline communication structure is engineered to deflect

  • No procedural integrity was shown in response to a fitness to practise referral

  • Safeguarding concerns were redirected to local authorities — the very entities accused

  • No effort was made to record, triage, or confirm the gravity of the allegations

  • The complainant, a disabled U.S. citizen parent, was dismissed with automated bureaucracy

This wasn’t triage. It was pre-scripted evasion wrapped in a hyperlink matrix.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the regulator cannot claim professionalism if its only reply to misconduct is "check our fee guide."
Because the auto-reply is not neutral — it is an architecture of plausible deniability.
Because no system can claim it protects the vulnerable while auto-responding to state violence.
Because we do not send allegations into the void — we file the void as evidence.

IV. Violations

  • Social Work England Standards 6.1, 6.4 – Failure to acknowledge or triage concerns

  • Regulator’s public interest duty – Failure to investigate credible safeguarding and ethical breaches

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 & 27 – Dismissive response to known disability-based complaint

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – No accessible or transparent complaint pathway

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Structural denial of access to procedural remedy

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t regulation. It was technocratic theatre performed by a server script.
This wasn’t an answer. It was a refusal camouflaged in helpful-sounding nothing.
This wasn’t missed. It was logged, dated, and preserved as the institution’s self-indictment.

SWANK hereby archives this message as a canonical example of non-engagement by regulatory automation.
The complaint was real.
The reply was digital.
And the archive does not forget.

⟡ 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 automation deserves exposure.

© 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:

SWANK v Westminster & RBKC: Investigative Brief on Safeguarding Misconduct and Systemic Disability Retaliation


⟡ “The Ministry of Moisture: How Social Work Became a Mold Factory” ⟡
When the State Started Leaking, It Wasn't Just Water — It Was Retaliation.

Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/INVESTIGATIVE-BRIEF-MISCONDUCT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_Submission_SWE_MinistryOfMoisture_InvestigativeBrief.pdf
Investigative brief submitted to Social Work England documenting systemic misconduct, retaliatory safeguarding abuse, and discriminatory practice by multiple registered social workers across Westminster and RBKC.

I. What Happened

On 28 May 2025 at 19:33, Polly Chromatic (writing under legal name for submission compliance) sent a formal investigative brief titled “The Ministry of Moisture” to Social Work England at enquiries@socialworkengland.org.uk.

The brief:

  • Documented retaliatory safeguarding escalation following formal complaints

  • Described a pattern of disability discrimination, record falsification, and intimidation

  • Highlighted failure to uphold legal duties, including failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • Named structural themes of suppression, retaliation, and misuse of statutory powers

It contextualised previously submitted Fitness to Practise referrals within a broader cultural pattern of institutional misconduct.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Safeguarding measures were used not to protect, but to punish

  • Multiple social workers across boroughs collaborated or failed to intervene

  • The system repeatedly ignored disability rights and fabricated procedural justification

  • Evidence was tampered with or suppressed after complaints were made

  • The institutional conduct resembles strategic containment, not child welfare

This wasn’t social work. It was surveillance culture with a care label.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because misconduct doesn’t end with one practitioner — it grows in damp institutions.
Because retaliation disguised as welfare is the most insidious state tool.
Because when safeguarding becomes a tactic, it’s no longer protective — it’s political.
Because this document names a culture, not just a case.
Because silence around systemic misconduct is what makes it structural.

IV. Violations

  • The Care Act 2014, Section 1 – Failure to promote individual well-being

  • Children Act 1989 – Weaponised safeguarding outside lawful thresholds

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 & 27 – Disability discrimination and victimisation

  • Social Work England Professional Standards 1.1, 1.3, 6.1 – Breaches of honesty, integrity, and responsibility

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair treatment and respect for family life

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child protection. It was systemic control via soft-authority weaponry.
This wasn’t rogue practice. It was compliance through fear, disguised as protocol.
This wasn’t moisture. It was a flood of retaliatory escalation logged by the very archive they tried to suppress.

SWANK hereby logs this brief as a statement of collective indictment.
The mold wasn’t the hazard — the culture was.
The leak wasn’t physical — it was procedural.
And the investigation has already begun — on our terms, and in our format.

⟡ 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 a title.

© 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:

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: Fitness to Practise, Failure to Stop ⟡


⟡ “A Fitness to Practise Concern Shouldn’t Need a Trigger Warning.” ⟡
Submission to Social Work England citing sustained misconduct, refusal of accommodations, and statutory misuse by Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 1 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-TO-PRACTISE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-01_SWANK_SWEConcern_KirstyHornal_FTPViolation.pdf
Email to SWE submitting formal FTP concern against Kirsty Hornal for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation

I. What Happened

On 1 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal Fitness to Practise concern to Social Work England, naming Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services as a practitioner engaged in unethical conduct. The message cited:

  • Retaliatory escalation of safeguarding after legal filings

  • Failure to respect medically confirmed communication adjustments

  • Repeated contact attempts via inaccessible formats

  • Harassment through procedural pressure and fabricated urgency

The submission was sent directly to SWE and copied to Hornal herself — a direct act of jurisdictional assertion from a disabled parent subject to state interference.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Circumvention of lawful disability adjustments; baseless safeguarding escalation

  • Human impact: Respiratory strain, PTSD triggers, and threat-induced instability for the entire family

  • Power dynamics: Social worker bypassing medical documentation to force coercive compliance

  • Institutional failure: No internal redress pathway; escalation treated as default response to resistance

  • Unacceptable conduct: Defining protected behaviour (e.g. email-only requests, legal complaints) as neglectful or hostile

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint was the baseline — and it should have been enough.
Because a Fitness to Practise process that requires multiple filings is already an indictment of the profession.
Because Kirsty Hornal was notified of this concern in real time — and chose to continue her conduct.
Because institutional violence often wears a badge of procedure — and this submission tore it off.

This post marks the beginning of a formal timeline: when a disabled mother sent the email that turned misconduct into record.

IV. Violations

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – respect, access, honesty, protection from harm

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate; retaliatory treatment for protected acts

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – neglect of child welfare to enforce parental compliance

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 & 14 – disability-based interference in private and family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be used to punish legal defiance.
We do not accept that “duty” overrides medical reality.
We do not accept that social workers can redefine resistance as risk.

This wasn’t just a complaint. It was a diagnosis — of professional decay, system rot, and personal vendetta masquerading as policy.

SWANK does not wait for institutional review. We publish our own.

⟡ 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:

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: When Procedure Became Punishment ⟡


⟡ “We Raised a Concern. They Called It Non-Cooperation.” ⟡
Formal complaint to Social Work England citing disability discrimination, cultural erasure, and retaliatory safeguarding misuse

Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ETHICS-FAILURE-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_SWEComplaint_Westminster_DiscriminationRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to SWE naming social workers for procedural breaches, racial insensitivity, and disability discrimination under PLO

I. What Happened

On 19 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England against Westminster Children’s Services, naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated failures in ethical conduct, professional standards, and legal obligations. The complaint outlines four core issues:

  • Non-disclosure of key assessment documents being used to justify PLO proceedings

  • Refusal to accommodate a written-only communication adjustment for medical reasons

  • Racial and cultural disregard, including the exclusion of the children’s Haitian father

  • The use of safeguarding escalation as retaliation for asserting legal rights

This submission followed months of ignored access needs, withheld reports, and surveillance-style safeguarding under the guise of concern.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Failure to disclose evidence under PLO; sidelining a co-parent; ignoring written-only accommodations

  • Human impact: Repeated trauma exposure, medical destabilisation, and cultural erasure

  • Power dynamics: Disguising retaliation as policy; framing advocacy as aggression

  • Institutional failure: Systemic disregard for mixed-heritage families and disability rights

  • Unacceptable conduct: Threatening escalation when parents assert lawful concerns

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint named it plainly: “If I speak up, they escalate.”
Because when racial bias, disability erasure, and threat-as-response converge — that’s not poor practice. That’s coercive administration.
Because safeguarding is not supposed to mean: comply, or we call court.
And because the refusal to provide the assessment in question speaks louder than the assessment ever could.

This archive entry is not a grievance — it’s a record of pattern. The conduct wasn’t accidental. It was embedded.

IV. Violations

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 – dignity, access, honesty, cultural responsiveness, avoiding harm

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of escalation powers; failure to promote welfare

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, & 27 – failure to accommodate, racial insensitivity, retaliatory behaviour

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – procedural fairness, right to family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that refusing to accommodate a disability is minor.
We do not accept that failing to include a non-English-speaking father is oversight.
We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be wielded like threats.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was escalation-as-discipline.
This was white governance over a mixed-heritage household.
And now, it is documented.

⟡ 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:

Kind Words. No Action. Real Harm.


⟡ “She Was Nice — and She Did Nothing.” ⟡
The kindest neglect is still neglect. Especially when it comes in email form.

Filed: 4 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/COMPLAINT-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-04_SWANK_SWEComplaint_KirstyHornal_DisabilityInaction_EmotionalHarm.pdf
This is the formal complaint to Social Work England about Kirsty Hornal — not for aggression, but for empathy without action. Polly Chromatic’s health was collapsing, her rights were known, and her accessibility needs were repeatedly affirmed — but never enforced. The result: procedural decay disguised as gentle concern.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic disclosed her legal and medical status.
She asked for written-only contact.
She explained that unannounced visits caused trauma, panic, and medical deterioration.
Kirsty Hornal agreed — and did nothing.

She said she would contact Dr. Philip Reid.
She didn’t.
She acknowledged the sewer gas exposure and respiratory crisis.
She let others keep coming.

Nice emails. Zero protection.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Kirsty acknowledged Eosinophilic Asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, and written-only adjustments

  • That despite awareness, she allowed verbal pressure, visits, and distress to continue

  • That medical evidence, safety risks, and retraumatisation were dismissed by inaction

  • That no attempt was made to support Polly’s legal rights or safeguard her and her disabled children

  • That passivity replaced protection, even as the crisis escalated

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because being "sympathetic" while people suffer isn't professional — it’s negligent.
Because it’s easier to ignore a fire when you’re holding a teacup.
Because good intentions don’t count when harm is systemic and preventable.
And because Polly Chromatic isn’t collecting compliments — she’s collecting evidence.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Standard 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 – Failure to uphold social justice, inclusion, and protection of rights

  • Standard 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 – Inadequate follow-through despite acknowledged trust

  • Standard 3.1, 3.3, 3.9, 3.13 – Lack of action in a known medical and safeguarding risk context

  • Standard 5.1, 5.5 – Continued emotional harm through unchecked and discriminatory practice

  • Standard 6.3 – Failure to support the complaint process or escalate concerns

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly Chromatic didn’t ask for empathy.
She asked for intervention.
Kirsty gave the first and avoided the second.

This wasn’t malice — but it wasn’t neutral either.
It was harm, dressed nicely.
And now it’s dressed in PDF.

⟡ 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:

Edward Kendall: Misrepresentation Filed. Retaliation Logged.


⟡ SWANK Fitness-to-Practise Ledger ⟡

“He Enabled Harm. We Filed for Fitness.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EDWARD-KENDALL/RBKC
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_EdwardKendall_DisabilityRetaliation_RBKC.pdf

I. The Role Was “Safeguarding Manager.” The Conduct Was Institutional Enabling.

This is not a character complaint.
It is a regulatory submission filed with Social Work England concerning Edward Kendall’s actions as Safeguarding Manager for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

What he did not say —
What he endorsed —
What he helped bury —

is now formally recorded as professional misconduct.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Edward Kendall:

    • Responded to formal complaints with strategic delay and vague summaries

    • Defended social workers who breached communication adjustments and legal boundaries

    • Attempted to close safeguarding complaints despite live evidence of:

      • Verbal coercion

      • Retaliatory escalation

      • False medical referrals

  • That his handling constituted:

    • Disability discrimination by omission

    • Negligent supervision of subordinate misconduct

    • And a procedural cover strategy masked as polite communication

This wasn’t safeguarding.

It was reputation protection — at the public’s expense.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence from a safeguarding manager is not neutrality — it is collusion in slow motion.

We filed this because:

  • The subject was disabled

  • The abuse was reported

  • The breaches were visible

  • And Edward Kendall did nothing but soften the language around institutional harm

Let the record show:

  • The safeguarding risk came from the service

  • The harm was medical and administrative

  • The complaint is not emotional — it is structural

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding roles used as buffer zones for liability.
We do not allow managers to hide behind process when their silence enables misconduct.
We do not tolerate councils that weaponise medical conditions and then assign safeguarding officers to “contain” the fallout.

Let the record show:

The harm was enabled.
The officer was named.
The file was sent.
And the archive — made it public.

This wasn’t mismanagement.
It was calculated neutrality in the face of documented retaliation.

⟡ 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:

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.


No comments:

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:

The Social Worker Who Investigated My Illness Instead of Accommodating It


⟡ When Medical Complaints Become Safeguarding Threats ⟡

Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/ISSACOMPLAINT-2025
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-19_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_SamiraIssa_SafeguardingRetaliation_DisabilityBreach_EthicsViolation.pdf

I. The Social Worker Who Investigated My Illness Instead of Accommodating It

This regulatory complaint to Social Work England (SWE) documents the conduct of Samira Issa, whose professional actions include:

  • Refusal to honour written-only disability adjustment

  • Escalation of safeguarding concerns in retaliation for lawful medical complaints

  • Initiation of procedural contact during documented respiratory crises

  • Breach of trauma-aware practice despite direct clinical evidence

She was not assigned to protect.
She was assigned to pressure — and did so with full administrative fluency.

II. What She Was Told. What She Ignored.

Ms Issa was made aware of:

  • Eosinophilic Asthma and speech restrictions

  • Formal written-only contact policies

  • Previous trauma linked to social services

  • Active medical complaints under investigation

Yet:

  • She escalated without cause

  • Initiated verbal outreach during known nonverbal phases

  • Deployed "concern" as cover for reputational clean-up

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was reputational retaliation scripted in pastel tone.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because medical harm should not trigger family investigation.
Because silence is a form of protection — and breaking it is an act of violation.
Because “just doing my job” ceases to be a defence when your job is systemic violence with a lanyard.

Let the record show:

  • The disability was known

  • The adjustment was denied

  • The family was targeted

  • And SWANK — filed it all, in regulator-ready language

This wasn’t care.
It was administrative cruelty written in “concern.”

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding referrals triggered by lawful complaint.
We do not permit social workers to bypass disability law.
We do not allow silence to be pathologised.

Let the record show:

A mother was punished for being ill.
A child was endangered by “support.”
A social worker escalated without ethics.
And SWANK — filed it for archive, citation, and eventual tribunal.

This isn’t professional misconduct.
It’s formatted retaliation — and we named the author.




No comments:

Safeguarding Wasn’t the Breach. His Endorsement Was.


⟡ The Supervisor Who Approved Retaliation as Policy ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PEACHE-MISCONDUCT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_GlenPeache_SafeguardingRetaliation_DisabilityMisconduct_SupervisoryBreach.pdf

I. Safeguarding Wasn’t the Breach. His Endorsement Was.

This complaint to Social Work England names Glen Peache, a senior official whose conduct did not merely overlook abuse — it codified it into workflow.

The charges include:

  • Ratification of retaliatory safeguarding action against a disabled parent

  • Knowingly breaching a written-only adjustment in a supervisory capacity

  • Failing to intervene when caseworkers weaponised contact procedures

  • Allowing trauma documentation to be dismissed without consequence

The misconduct wasn’t rogue.
It was managerial — and approved by font.

II. When Supervision Becomes Strategy

Peache’s position granted him:

  • Oversight of known discriminatory patterns

  • Authority to de-escalate harm — which he declined

  • Access to protected health data and procedural violations

  • A professional obligation to intervene, not amplify

Instead:

  • He authorised the very breaches reported

  • Shielded staff behind “process”

  • Permitted silence as a form of defence

He supervised retaliation.
SWANK supervised the filing.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because supervision is not a loophole.
Because retaliation in the name of “procedure” is still abuse.
Because when misconduct becomes endorsed, every line manager becomes a named party.

Let the record show:

  • The adjustment was in writing

  • The safeguarding threat was tactical

  • The supervision was informed

  • And SWANK — filed, formatted, and timestamped the entire structure

This wasn’t inaction.
It was policy-grade harm, notarised at the managerial level.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not excuse oversight failures when they enable institutional abuse.
We do not accept that managers can feign ignorance of coordinated harm.
We do not redact names once the supervision becomes the strategy.

Let the record show:

He read the files.
He approved the breach.
He oversaw the harm.
And SWANK — filed the evidence to Social Work England.

This isn’t a rogue incident.
It’s the supervisory system as accomplice — and we filed the chain of command.




No comments:

He Ignored the Risk Notification. We Filed to the Regulator.


⟡ The Social Worker Who Investigated My Breathing, Not Their Conduct ⟡

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

I. He Ignored the Risk Notification. We Filed to the Regulator.

This complaint to Social Work England (SWE) names Edward Kendall, a registered social worker whose actions — or rather, legally significant inactions — include:

  • Failing to acknowledge or respond to a written-only adjustment

  • Permitting retaliatory safeguarding procedures to proceed unchecked

  • Refusing to intervene in known breaches of disability rights

  • Contributing to a culture of procedural gaslighting via plausible omission

He didn’t raise the alarm.
He buried it in polite silence.

II. What He Saw. What He Didn’t Say.

Kendall had access to:

  • Formal written-only communication policies

  • Documented asthma collapse, trauma diagnoses, and risk flags

  • Retaliatory communications from colleagues

  • Evidence of safeguarding escalation with no statutory basis

Yet:

  • He said nothing

  • He stopped nothing

  • He endorsed everything — by doing nothing at all

In safeguarding, silence isn’t neutrality.
It’s endorsement, disguised as deference.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because ignoring a breach is not ethics — it is complicity.
Because silence is not support when violence is procedural.
Because when one’s job is to supervise risk and one instead supervises harm, we file the whole team.

Let the record show:

  • The disability was declared

  • The safeguarding was retaliatory

  • The silence was supervisory

  • And SWANK — filed it all, with citations

This is not about one oversight.
It is an institutional hush, now archived in PDF.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that ethics exist merely in tone.
We do not accept that social workers can spectate harm without consequence.
We do not accept the logic of "I didn’t know" when the inbox says otherwise.

Let the record show:

The harm was documented.
The file was emailed.
The adjustment was ignored.
And SWANK — filed the supervisor alongside the breach.

This isn’t whistleblowing.
It’s evidentiary maintenance — and we keep everything.




No comments:

The Complaint They Can’t Call ‘Too Long to Read


⟡ Alternate Filing: Streamlined for the Regulator, Sharpened for the Archive ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-ALTVERSION
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_KirstyHornal_AlternateVersion_Retaliation_DisabilityBreach.pdf

I. When the Original Complaint Was Too Elegant, We Filed the Efficient One Too

This is the alternate filing of SWANK’s regulatory complaint to Social Work England concerning Kirsty Hornal, authored not in fury, but in forensic restraint.

Where the first version was archival, this one is surgical:

  • Condensed timeline

  • Legal grounding prioritised over flourish

  • Explicit regulatory breach categories

  • Precision built for institutional digestion

The regulator didn’t need the velvet.
But they’ll still feel the blade.

II. Why There Are Two Versions — and Why Both Matter

The original filing documented:

  • The full retaliatory context

  • The medical violations

  • The weaponisation of procedure

This version:

  • Distills the misconduct into line-item offence

  • Mirrors the format regulators use to excuse themselves

  • Anticipates institutional deflection — and closes the gaps first

Some threats need exposition.
Others just need unanswerable formatting.

III. Why SWANK Filed It (Again)

Because submission style should never dictate regulatory credibility.
Because when the offence is egregious, you file once for memory and once for movement.
Because if they say “make it simpler,” we say “make it plainer — and attach the exhibits.”

Let the record show:

  • The first was for the archive

  • The second was for their inbox

  • The harm was the same

  • And SWANK — filed both, in sequence and supremacy

This isn’t repetition.
It’s calibration for institutional cowardice.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not soften misconduct for convenience.
We do not apologise for elegance.
We do not file only once — when their system ignores the first version out of style panic.

Let the record show:

Hornal retaliated.
The system enabled her.
The archive recorded it.
And SWANK — refiled for the regulator’s short attention span.

This is not alternate.
It is parallel strategy — one for the record, one for the excuse-proof inbox.




No comments: