“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 Social Work Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Work Abuse. Show all posts

The Social Worker Opened a High-Level Investigation Based on an Email from a Nurse Who Never Saw Me

 πŸ“Ž SWANK Dispatch: Section 47 By Email? My Son Was Watching Cartoons.

πŸ—“️ 5 February 2024

Filed Under: false safeguarding referral, hospital retaliation, Section 47 fraud, medical discrimination, asthma crisis ignored, RBKC procedural abuse, cartoon-watching children, health condition weaponised, Westminster A&E, Chelsea and Westminster misconduct


“The nurse didn’t examine me.
She sent an email saying I looked erratic.
The next day, I was under investigation.”

— A Mother of Four Still Recovering From Being Denied Oxygen


This document chronicles the beginning of the Section 47 investigation opened by Samira Issa at RBKC, following an email from a nurse at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The email falsely stated that Polly Chromatic presented as “possibly intoxicated” and “erratic” — despite:

  • Having documented eosinophilic asthma

  • A known history of communication difficulty during flares

  • Being treated for respiratory crisis, not mental illness

No formal safeguarding referral was submitted through the usual medical protocols.
No in-person assessment by a mental health specialist.
No toxicology.
Just an email.


πŸ₯ I. The Reality of the Hospital Visit

  • Polly arrived with:

    • Oxygen saturation of 90%

    • Blood pressure of 160/74

    • Peak flow between 112–120

  • She could barely hold her phone

  • Her condition was visibly physical — not psychological

  • She repeatedly asked for help breathing, not parenting

And yet, by the next day:

A Section 47 child protection investigation had been launched.
Polly had not even recovered from the asthma flare.


πŸ“Ί II. Meanwhile, at Home...

  • Her son was watching cartoons

  • The home was peaceful, clean, and calm

  • The children were safe

  • The only trauma introduced was by the investigation itself


πŸ“‚ III. SWANK Commentary

You opened a Section 47
based on an email.

Not a visit.
Not a referral form.
Not a risk.

And certainly not a truth.



I Went to Report Abuse — They Told Me I Was the Criminal

 πŸ“‘ SWANK Dispatch: How to Mismanage a Complaint into a Threat

πŸ—“️ 6 August 2020

Filed Under: complaint misdirection, truancy lies, homeschool sabotage, procedural dishonesty, trauma minimisation, asthma discrimination, policy weaponisation, investigative misconduct


“I brought evidence. They brought back the original threat — with new stationery.”
— A Mother Who Tried Every Proper Channel

On 6 August 2020Polly Chromatic met with Willette A. Pratt, Senior Investigative Officer of the Complaints Commission, expecting an investigation into her trauma and systemic abuse by the Department of Social Development. What she received was an administrative boomerang: the original truancy threat from 2017 — revived, rebranded, and hurled back at her by the very commission meant to hear her complaint.


πŸ” I. The Complaint Was About Trauma. The Response Was a Checklist.

She described the following:

• Her sons were sexually abused by a doctor under state orders.
• Her fence was dismantled.
• Her home was entered illegally during a pandemic.
• She was dragged to hospital under false accusations.

What did Willette Pratt say?

“Your children aren’t approved for homeschool, and they may be taken away.”


πŸ“‹ II. The New Requirements — Delivered with a Smile

Pratt claimed Polly had spoken to the wrong official in 2017.
Apparently, Mark Garland, Deputy Director of Education, was not “senior enough.”
Despite having:
✓ Met with her
✓ Approved her curriculum
✓ Notified Social Development

Now, she was told to:

• Re-submit all documentation
• Include proof of social interaction
• Hire a teacher to assess her children annually
• Address it to Edgar Howell, Director
• Send it through Pratt (of course)


🧠 III. The Gaslight Was Institutional

“I feel like the entire issue is much bigger than just with the Department of Social Development.”

Indeed. The Complaints Commission had become another arm of the same dysfunction. Rather than investigating the abuse, it pivoted to treating the victim as the problem.


⚖️ Final Position:

“Because obtaining homeschool approval is so important for my children’s well-being… I feel it is necessary to consult an attorney.”

A mother filed a complaint to protect her children.
She left that meeting more endangered than when she arrived.



I Asked for the Policy in 2017. I’m Still Waiting in 2020.

 πŸ“š SWANK Dispatch: When Approval to Homeschool Is Weaponised Against You

πŸ—“️ 5 August 2020

Filed Under: homeschool sabotage, administrative gaslighting, social worker overreach, truancy threats, institutional memory failure, medical abuse, policy denial, bureaucratic cruelty


“I was approved. I submitted everything. But they kept moving the goalpost.”
— A Mother in Compliance, Not Complicit

In this dispatch dated 5 August 2020Polly Chromatic finally directs her words to the actual Director of Education, Edgar Howell, after three years of being bounced between Mark GarlandMr. Kennedy, and the Department of Social Development — all of whom demanded documentation, received it, and still continued to threaten her family with unlawful action.

What she asked for was simple.
What she received was state-fuelled trauma.


πŸ—‚️ I. Homeschool Policy? She Asked in 2017.

Polly’s BA and MA degrees were submitted.
She submitted her curriculum every year since 2017.
She had verbal approval from Mark Garland, who confirmed it in writing.

Yet in 2020, she’s told:

“You spoke to the wrong person.”

No policy was ever provided.
But truancy threats were. Repeatedly.


🚨 II. Institutional Harassment in Lieu of Lawful Process

Let us catalogue:

• May 2017: Her sons were sexually assaulted during a forced examination by a doctor in front of 9 adults — under the orders of Social Development
• March 2020: Her home was entered against her will and against COVID Emergency Powers
• August 2020: Her fence was dismantled and her children were forcibly taken for a vaccination check (they were vaccinated)

No reports. No charges. No apologies. Just more visits.


⚖️ III. The Complaint Became the Crime

When she contacted the Complaints Commission, she was told:

“You’re not approved to homeschool and they may take your children.”

Thus, the very act of filing a complaint resurrected a false allegation she had resolved three years earlier — a tactic as coercive as it is cruel.


πŸ“Ž Final Request, Made Clear:

“Please provide me with written approval to homeschool along with the policy and procedures that I need to follow.”

What she deserves: a written policy.
What she demands: lawful treatment.
What she gets: recycled threats dressed as safeguarding.



Disappearances and Document Tampering: A SWANK Case Study Cluster



SECTION VI: CASE STUDY CLUSTER

Disappearances, Retaliation, and Records Tampering


I. Purpose of Case Cluster

This section consolidates real-world patterns of abuse and disappearance under social work authority.

These are not isolated incidents—they are clusters of harm, sustained by the same environmental conditions:

  • Unverifiable concerns

  • Missing paperwork

  • Retaliation after complaint

  • Children removed without lawful justification

  • Records altered or denied


II. Case 1: The Sealed Referral That Triggered Removal

A mother with multiple documented disabilities—severe asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and PTSD—was targeted by Westminster social workers. She requested the original safeguarding referral that justified the investigation.

Council response:

“There is no document. It may have been verbal.”

Her children were nearly removed. FOI and SAR requests were ignored. A PLO letter followed months after she filed complaints and police reports.
The message was clear: Complain, and we retaliate.


III. Case 2: The Whistleblower’s Erasure

A social worker raised concerns about a child removed without parental knowledge during a hospital stay.

  • The report disappeared

  • Emails were deleted

  • Their name vanished from the staff rota

  • They were “asked to step back” from duty

This was not due process. It was institutional erasure.


IV. Case 3: The Abused Child Punished for Disclosure

A 10-year-old disclosed sexual abuse to school staff.

Instead of safety, the system delivered:

  • Accusations of “coaching” against the mother

  • Removal of the child for “over-attachment”

  • Redaction of the abuse disclosure from court filings

  • Placement in a home already under misconduct review

There was no inquiry. There was only silence.


V. Case 4: The Litigant Who Lost Her Children After Filing Against the Council

A parent filed an N1 civil claim against her local authority. In response, she was issued an urgent safeguarding referral.

  • Medical records misquoted

  • Notes accessed without consent

  • A child interviewed without a parent present

  • SARs denied or “incomplete”

  • Court relied on sealed, undisclosed files

Her legal claim remains unresolved.
Her children remain “under assessment.”


VI. Case 5: The Untraceable Care Home Transfer

A teenage girl disappeared from her foster home.

When her birth mother inquired, she was told:

“We cannot provide that information.”
“She has been moved under emergency relocation.”
“That case is now closed.”

The child was eventually found—miles away, in a private care facility.
No transfer documents appeared in the SAR.
No official could name the person who authorised the move.


VII. Pattern Summary

MechanismObserved Consequences
Missing or verbal referralsNo legal avenue to contest child removal
Complaints trigger retaliationFamilies punished for whistleblowing
Sealed or altered recordsTruth redacted from the historical archive
Off-the-record decisionsChildren disappear into paperless limbo
Multi-agency deflectionNo accountability, only referrals between silos

VIII. Ethical Crisis

When a system enables:

  • Child disappearance

  • Evidence tampering

  • Punishment for legal recourse

…we are not observing failure.
We are observing design.

This is not a system that breaks.
It is a system that protects itself—by obscuring truth, suppressing dissent, and profiting from harm.



Documented Obsessions