🦚 Formal Complaint to Westminster Children’s Services – Concerning Mr. Ernie Wallace, Ms. R P, and Ms. Flora Saxophone: A Study in Procedural Coercion and Managerial Theatre
Filed under the documentation of safeguarding distortion, disability discrimination, and bureaucratic performance art.
4 March 2025
To:
Westminster Children’s Services – Complaints Department
Email: ASCCustomerFeedback@westminster.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint – Mr Ernie Wallace, Ms R P, and Ms Flora Saxophone (Westminster Children’s Services)
📜 Dear Complaints Team,
It is with equal parts disbelief and exhaustion that I submit this formal complaint concerning three senior figures within Westminster City Council’s Children’s Services:
What follows is not a mere list of missteps,
but a symphony of procedural violations, disability discrimination, and thinly veiled coercion,
conducted by individuals whose professional titles seem, at best, ornamental.
📚 I. Mr. Ernie Wallace – Theatre of the Oppressive
Mr. Wallace’s conduct has been, in a word, harrowing.
His contributions include:
Attempting to resurrect and reassess a decade’s worth of closed allegations,
not for safeguarding, but for deliberate retraumatisation.
Refusing written communication, and instead demanding a verbal account within five minutes,
despite documented medical evidence of eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia prohibiting such interaction.
Publicly agreeing to respect written-only communication,
only to persistently violate this commitment,
causing repeated physical illness for myself and my medically vulnerable children.
Supplying false and defamatory information to psychologist Liz White,
including an entirely fabricated allegation of domestic violence,
inflicting reputational harm with no evidentiary basis.
Displaying visible hostility and agitation when disability limited my verbal compliance,
as if medical incapacity were grounds for disciplinary action.
📜 II. Ms. R P – Managerial Performance Art
After multiple complaints regarding Mr. Wallace’s conduct,
Ms. P’s managerial intervention was to…
Arrange a farewell visit.
Rather than safeguarding intervention or professional reflection,
she sent Mr. Wallace back into my home —
for a ceremonial violation of boundaries,
carried out with all the tact of a public relations stunt and none of the emotional intelligence required for traumatised families.
📚 III. Ms. Flora Saxophone – Policy by Intimidation
Ms. Saxophone's contributions to this systemic debacle include:
Repeatedly pressuring me to remove home security cameras,
a request both inappropriate and legally questionable,
given my unambiguous right to document professional visits.
Persistently demanding verbal communication,
despite clear medical prohibitions and repeated formal requests for written correspondence.
Supporting the practice whereby social workers refused to engage with my children inside the home,
insisting instead upon removing them off-camera —
A safeguarding practice that is ethically disturbing, procedurally unsound, and grossly incompatible with transparency.
📜 IV. Systemic Failure, Codified in Staff Badges
Together, these actions represent:
A systemic culture of coercion and concealment;
A contempt for the legal rights of disabled service users;
An operational philosophy wherein medically complex families are treated as bureaucratic inconveniencesrather than as citizens entitled to lawful, ethical support.
This is not merely a breach of best practice.
It is an indictment of Westminster’s safeguarding framework.
📚 V. Requested Action
Accordingly, I respectfully request that Westminster Children’s Services:
Conduct a full investigation into the conduct of Mr. Wallace, Ms. P, and Ms. Saxophone,
specifically regarding retraumatisation, false reporting, boundary violations, and disability discrimination.
Provide a point-by-point written explanation regarding how each action aligns (or fails to align)
with Westminster’s safeguarding policies and obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Confirm whether these individuals will be referred to Social Work England,
given the serious concerns regarding fitness to practise.
Issue a written assurance that coercive practices —
such as pressuring service users to abandon lawful surveillance, speak against medical advice,
or surrender children for off-site interviews — will be immediately reviewed and ceased.
📬 Final Note
The individuals named above did not wield institutional power to protect.
They wielded it to coerce, conceal, and control —
in open defiance of law, guidance, and human decency.
I await your response —
preferably one grounded in reflection, rather than reflexive defence.
📜 Yours sincerely,
With constitutional rigour and unshakable documentation,
Polly