⟡ “This Isn’t Our Jurisdiction — Please Moisture Somewhere Else.” ⟡
Parliament’s Justice Committee Declines a Safeguarding Abuse Submission, Referring It to Education with No Comment on Content
Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PARLIAMENT/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_JusticeCommittee_DeflectsSafeguardingBriefing.pdf
Summary: The Justice Committee declined a formal safeguarding evidence submission, stating it was out of remit and redirecting it to the Education Committee.
I. What Happened
On 28 May 2025, a detailed evidence brief titled “The Ministry of Moisture: How Social Work Became a Mold Factory”was submitted to the Parliamentary Justice Committee. The brief outlined patterns of safeguarding misuse, retaliation, and child endangerment. It drew from formal complaints, legal filings, and first-hand documentation.
On 29 May 2025, the Justice Committee replied. They acknowledged receipt but stated the issues lay outside their remit — redirecting the complaint to the Education Committee without comment on the content, its seriousness, or how cross-departmental safeguarding failures are to be handled.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Parliamentary committees apply rigid jurisdictional boundaries even in cases involving overlapping public protection failures
• A comprehensive evidence brief involving legal retaliation and child endangerment received no substantive reply
• The procedural structure of Parliament makes full institutional accountability nearly impossible
• The Justice Committee offered no support, no inquiry mechanism, no acknowledgment of risk
• Referral to another committee became a form of official avoidance
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when you submit a record of institutional harm to a parliamentary oversight body — and the reply is “wrong department” — that reply becomes part of the harm.
Because deflection isn’t just bureaucratic. It’s constitutional.
Because the Justice Committee chose to see safeguarding violations as not about justice.
SWANK logs the corridors where evidence goes unheard — because the walls have names.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that a parliamentary justice body can opt out of justice when children’s lives are at stake.
We do not accept that investigative briefings should be redirected without read-through, comment, or commitment.
We do not accept that jurisdictional fencing is a valid excuse for the abandonment of public duty.
This wasn’t a misfire. This was a soft denial with a hyperlink.
And SWANK will publish every committee that chose not to care.
⟡ 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.