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

You Fabricated a Risk. I Filed a Complaint. You Called That Neglect. But Now the Record Belongs to Me.


⟡ “She Lied About My Parenting. I Filed a Complaint. She Called That Neglect.” ⟡
A formal rebuttal and complaint naming Kirsty Hornal for manufacturing safeguarding risk, retaliating against disability accommodation, and turning complaint into cause.

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-17
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_KirstyHornal_PLOFabrication_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to Westminster Children’s Services and regulatory authorities detailing disability discrimination, statutory retaliation, and factual fabrication by social worker Kirsty Hornal. Includes legal citations, psychiatric evidence, and intent to escalate to oversight bodies and court.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Westminster issued a PLO warning letter. It contained false allegations, procedural distortions, and accusations that had no evidentiary basis. This formal complaint was issued in direct response, citing misconduct, discrimination, and structural harm.

In this filing, Polly Chromatic:

  • Cites the Equality Act 2010 and psychiatric documentation (Dr. Rafiq, Nov 2024)

  • Refutes every claim: neglect, disengagement, educational failure, drug use

  • Confirms prior contact, medical communication boundaries, and lawful parenting history

  • Notes that the CIN plan was closed without request, immediately after a police report

  • Names the resulting escalation — PLO — as retaliatory in both form and intent

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That safeguarding procedures were activated not to protect — but to retaliate

  • That Kirsty Hornal misused professional authority to punish lawful complaint

  • That disability accommodation was repeatedly refused, misrepresented, or erased

  • That internal records appear inaccurate, deliberately biased, or both

  • That Westminster cannot plead ignorance — they were given medical reports, legal citations, and clinical proof

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the moment safeguarding becomes conditional on silence, it ceases to be lawful. And the moment an institution uses your diagnosis against you — it isn’t protection. It’s persecution.

SWANK archived this filing to:

  • Publicly expose the structural logic behind the PLO escalation

  • Name the institutional actors responsible for retaliatory statutory abuse

  • Formally declare the breakdown of social work neutrality in this case

This is not “parental resistance.” It’s a forensic refusal to accept rewritten facts.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Refusal to adjust for disability
    • Section 27: Retaliation following police report
    • Section 149: Breach of public sector duty to eliminate discrimination

  • Children Act 1989 – Fabricated neglect claims caused emotional harm and statutory abuse

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Family life
    • Article 6: Right to a fair hearing
    • Article 14: Protection from discrimination

  • Social Work England Standards –
    • 3.1: Be honest and accurate
    • 5.1: Maintain factual records
    • 6.4: Do not allow personal views to influence professional decisions

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t child protection — it’s case-building against the truth. When a social worker reads your psychiatric report and still accuses you of “non-engagement,” she isn’t confused. She’s working from a script.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this complaint as a procedural bombshell. One that will detonate in court, in regulation, and in public record.

⟡ 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 (Jurisdictional Integrity and the Doctrine of Procedural Disqualification)


⟡ Hornal Must Be Removed ⟡
“No one who bypasses jurisdiction and breaches legal boundaries belongs on a safeguarding team.”

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/REQUEST/0626-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Request_RemoveKirstyHornal.pdf
Formal court request for the removal of social worker Kirsty Hornal due to sustained procedural misconduct and breach of legal communication directives.

I. What Happened

Ms. Kirsty Hornal, a social worker under Westminster Children’s Services, repeatedly initiated informal, unauthorised, and improper contact with the applicant’s family — in direct violation of legal redirect notices. She delivered supervision packages unannounced, refused to identify herself, and continued backchannel communication despite court-filings redirecting all correspondence to SWANK London Ltd.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Escalating misuse of professional authority

  • Retaliatory and coercive contact behaviour

  • Disregard for court procedure, formal jurisdiction, and trauma-informed guidelines

  • Unprofessionalism rising to the level of safeguarding endangerment

  • Clear loss of impartiality, creating prejudicial conditions for family court decisions

III. Why SWANK Logged It

No institution should reward procedural insubordination. When legal redirection is issued, it is not a suggestion — it is a boundary. Ms. Hornal’s refusal to abide by those boundaries, and her continued presence in these proceedings, has compromised both procedural integrity and maternal trust. Her presence is a symbol of Westminster’s retaliatory posture — not its protective one.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to act in the best interests of the child

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with family life (Art. 8)

  • Social Work England Code of Practice – Failure to maintain professional boundaries

  • Public Law Protocol – Bypass of formal process and legal service

V. SWANK’s Position

Kirsty Hornal’s involvement is procedurally contaminated. Her actions are incompatible with fairness, legality, or the protective ethos of the Children Act. This filing is not merely about one worker’s conduct — it is about the precedent that this court is prepared to set. Neutrality is not optional. Impartiality is not decorative. Trust in safeguarding depends on it.

⟡ 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: When Retaliation Masquerades as Risk ⟡


⟡ “She Called It Non-Engagement. We Called It Disability.” ⟡
The professional misconduct complaint Kirsty Hornal will never cite on LinkedIn

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/RETALIATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_Complaint_KirstyHornal_DisabilityRetaliationSubmission.pdf
Formal complaint filed to Social Work England citing retaliatory safeguarding and disability discrimination

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England against Westminster Council’s Kirsty Hornal. The complaint enumerated a series of professional violations including:

  • Escalating to PLO proceedings in retaliation for lawful litigation and data subject access

  • Refusing to honour a documented disability accommodation for written-only communication

  • Gaslighting the impact of PTSD and chronic illness by recasting silence as “non-engagement”

  • Including false medical information in formal safeguarding documents

  • Inflicting systemic emotional harm through procedural sabotage

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Abusing safeguarding escalation post-litigation; falsifying records; ignoring reasonable adjustments

  • Human impact: Distress, medical regression, and educational instability for disabled mother and children

  • Power dynamics: Weaponising child protection as institutional retaliation

  • Institutional failure: Permitting social workers to disregard medical documentation without oversight

  • Unacceptable conduct: Conflating disability with defiance, and litigation with risk

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this isn’t a one-off.
Because the minute a disabled parent asserts legal rights, a social worker in Westminster calls it neglect.
Because retaliation in child protection is the final sanctuary of bureaucrats who’ve run out of arguments.
Because silence, as strategy, was pathologised — then punished.
SWANK archived this not as drama, but as doctrine: the misapplication of safeguarding is a tool of civil control.
And what was once invisible now has a PDF.

IV. Violations

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

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – refusal of reasonable adjustments, discriminatory practice

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 5.1 – integrity, respect for dignity, and misuse of authority

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – interference with family life through retaliatory escalation

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was strategic retaliation cloaked in statutory language.

We do not accept that formal disability documentation can be ignored without consequence.
We do not accept that lawful action justifies intrusive scrutiny.
We do not accept that safeguarding means silencing.

We document this not to inform the system — but to outlive it.
Kirsty Hornal’s conduct is not just unfit for practice. It is a masterclass in how institutional authority cloaks discrimination in duty.

⟡ 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 SWE: The Panel Was Warned ⟡


⟡ “The Pattern Was Clear. The Retaliation Was Organised.” ⟡
A formal escalation exposing coordinated misconduct by multiple registered social workers

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-PANEL-ESCALATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_Complaint_SWEPanel_RetaliationPattern.pdf
Formal escalation letter requesting full panel review of repeated misconduct and fitness to practise breaches

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal escalation letter to Social Work England’s Fitness to Practise Panel. The submission identified a coordinated pattern of retaliatory safeguarding misuse and disability discrimination by four registered social workers:

  • Kirsty Hornal

  • Glen Peache

  • Edward Kendall

  • Rhiannon Hodgson

The complaint documents a post-litigation pattern of safeguarding escalation without evidence, the deliberate refusal of disability accommodations, and unethical distortion of medical records. The actions described had a direct and harmful impact on Polly’s disabled family.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Triggering CIN/PLO processes as retaliation for legal action; using statutory frameworks for reprisal

  • Human impact: Emotional distress, disrupted care, destabilised home education, and the erosion of trust

  • Power dynamics: Professionals operating in tandem to reinforce fabricated narratives

  • Institutional failure: No internal checks, no safeguarding of the safeguarding process

  • Unacceptable conduct: Allowing collusion between practitioners to punish a parent for protected activity

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliation isn’t just personal — it’s structural.
Because a single abusive worker can be dismissed as an outlier — but four cannot.
Because it’s clear that disability adjustments were viewed not as access tools, but as strategic weaknesses to exploit.
Because what Polly Chromatic experienced wasn’t incidental error. It was premeditated sabotage in social work form.

This entry is an escalation — and a signal: institutional patterns must now answer to public documentation.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk thresholds and procedural timelines

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, and 27 – failure to accommodate; harassment; victimisation

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – honesty, person-centred practice, avoiding harm

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful interference with family life and access needs

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not one bad apple.
This was a barrel — curated, coordinated, and spoiling the profession from within.

SWANK does not accept that the Fitness to Practise process is a waiting room for abusers in uniform.
We do not accept retaliatory safeguarding disguised as risk protocol.
We do not accept silence from a regulator when the pattern is this visible.

This archive is not just a record. It is precedent — a public memory for every child punished for their parent’s resistance.

⟡ 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:

A Social Worker’s Sword: Misconduct, Discrimination, and the Art of Retaliation in Westminster


Referral to Social Work England

Regarding the Conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal – Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Contempt, and Abuse of Registered Authority

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

2 June 2025

To:
Professional Standards Directorate
Social Work England
✉ enquiries@socialworkengland.org.uk

Subject: Formal Fitness to Practise Referral – Kirsty Hornal (Westminster Children’s Services)

Concerning Misuse of Safeguarding Powers, Procedural Malfeasance, and Discriminatory Conduct toward a Disabled Litigant

Dear Professional Standards Team,

I write, with the requisite exhaustion of one too frequently targeted by institutional disdain, to raise a formal referral against Ms Kirsty Hornal, social worker employed by Westminster City Council Children’s Services, whose recent conduct has pierced the boundaries of professional decency and landed squarely in the domain of coercive misconduct.

🕯 The Incident in Brief — Though Nothing About It Was Briefly Endured

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal issued me an unsolicited and aggressive email, stating that “the local authority is applying to court for a supervision order.” The communication was:

  • Unanchored in legal reality, risk evidence, or safeguarding protocol

  • Devoid of procedural grounding, and therefore gratuitously menacing

  • A retaliatory dispatch, sent in the midst of my civil claim against her employer

  • A flagrant disregard of my disability accommodations, which prohibit surprise escalations or verbal manoeuvrings

  • Delivered as if law were theatre, and I, its unwillingly cast antagonist

One does not need a law degree — though I have certainly acted as though I hold several — to see this was not safeguarding. It was retribution masquerading as duty.

⚖ Enumerated Breaches of Professional Standards

The following Professional Standards, issued by your own body, were treated by Ms Hornal as optional décor:

  • 1.6 – Failing to treat me as an individual or to respect my legal and medical status

  • 1.7 – Communicating in a manner that was neither appropriate, open, nor honest — unless one considers veiled threats a form of transparency

  • 1.9 – Exploiting her statutory position to intimidate, not protect

  • 2.2 – Collapsing the necessary boundary between professional role and personal vendetta

  • 5.4 – Causing risk, not mitigating it; undermining confidence in social work as a domain of safeguarding rather than silencing

🎭 Context – Which She Cannot Claim to Have Missed

I am a disabled mother of four, managing complex PTSD and muscle tension dysphonia — conditions formally documented and acknowledged by Westminster multiple times. My written-only communication directive has been repeatedly submitted. Yet, Ms Hornal chose to escalate through litigation theatre without process, consultation, or lawful basis. Her actions are not merely improper — they are institutionally corrosive.

Police involvement (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) has been necessitated. That, in itself, is an indictment of this profession’s failure to police its own.

🗂 Documents Available for Your Review

  • Exhibit A: Ms Hornal’s email (31 May 2025)

  • Exhibit B: Communication directives and medical documentation

  • Exhibit C: Metropolitan Police report, filed 2 June 2025

  • Exhibit D: Civil litigation materials proving conflict of interest

🧾 Remedy Sought

I request, in the interests of public trust and professional integrity, that Social Work England initiate an immediate fitness to practise review. This is not a matter of “conflict resolution.” It is a matter of removing individuals who weaponise statutory authority for bureaucratic vengeance.

I trust that Social Work England wishes to be perceived not merely as a registration body, but as a guardian of ethical standards. Please do not let this one pass beneath the rug so many others have already vanished under.

Yours, exquisitely unimpressed,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

They Wanted Court, Not Peace


⟡ SWANK Black Paper: Final Curtain of 2020 ⟡

When the State Refused Mediation and Demanded Control
11 December 2020

Because Accountability Feels Like Insult to the Unexamined

I. The Letter That Confirms the Theatre Was Always Personal

On 11 December 2020, the Department of Social Development (DSD) formally replied to F Chambers regarding the Supervision Order sought against Polly Chromatic.

What did they say?

  • They would not withdraw the application.

  • They insisted the matter must proceed to court—despite earlier offers to resolve the matter without litigation.

Why?

Because Polly complained.
Because Polly named the harassment.
Because Polly was correct, and they were exposed.

This wasn’t about child welfare.
This was a stage production for institutional ego.

II. Excerpts That Reveal Their True Intentions

“We have discussed this and carefully considered the ramifications…”
Translation: We know this is retaliatory. We’re filing anyway.

“We must ensure that there is a legal agreement in place to guard our position.”
Translation: We’re not safeguarding children. We’re safeguarding ourselves.

“Your client has gone to extensive lengths to discredit this Department’s veracity…”
Translation: She told the truth, and now she must be punished.

Let no one pretend this is about children.
It is about vindication by force.

III. Let the Record Show: Mediation Was Offered, Retaliation Was Chosen

They admit, on record:

  • Polly filed formal complaints to both the Complaints Commission and the Human Rights Commission

  • She named the pattern as harassment

  • She documented everything

  • She sought only transparency, fairness, and reasonableness

Their decision?

Proceed to court.
Secure a legal leash.
Neutralise the witness.

This isn’t safeguarding.
It’s a strategic silencing mechanism disguised in procedural paperwork.


© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
The state’s integrity could not survive the mother’s truth—so they filed for supervision.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

The Thirteenth Day of Silence — A Lesson in Bureaucratic Contempt

 📭 SWANK Dispatch: Still Waiting for the Letter That Was Promised a Week Ago

🗓️ 3 August 2020

Filed Under: broken promises, social work negligence, ignored timelines, communication failure, administrative delay, institutional disrespect, unfulfilled duties, child welfare hypocrisy

“A week, you said. It’s been thirteen days.”
— A Mother Counting Silence as Evidence

Dearest Viewer of Dysfunctional Timelines,

On 20 July 2020, Ashley Adams-Forbes, Deputy Director of the Department of Social Development, wrote the following words to Noelle Bonneannée:

“Please give me a week to provide you with an official letter.”

Noelle, as ever, was generous in patience — but today, on 3 August 2020, she followed up. Not with anger. With precision.

📅 I. What Was Promised

A letter.
An official response.
Reports regarding her children’s ongoing cases.
A formal engagement with a detailed timeline she herself had compiled — graciously, professionally.

📭 II. What Was Delivered

Nothing.
Thirteen days of silence.
Thirteen days in which Ashley Adams-Forbes simply did not honour her own commitment.

And this from an office allegedly devoted to the well-being of children.

📌 III. What the Silence Says

When a government department asks for a week and delivers nothing in thirteen days, it is not a delay.
It is a message.

And the message is this:
We do not take your concerns seriously.
We do not believe we are accountable to you.
We do not care that you are still waiting.

🖋️ Final Note from Noelle:

“I want my concerns to be taken seriously; however, my concerns seem to be continuously ignored.”

SWANK has taken note.
The archive remembers what they hoped to forget.


No comments:

You Were Not Investigating. You Were Circling.


⟡ A Ministry of Harm: Filing What the Islands Forgot ⟡

Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-COMPLAINT-COMMISSION
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-06_SWANK_TCI_ComplaintsCommission_SocialDevComplaint_MedicalAssault_TruancyThreat.pdf

I. A Government That Would Not Stop Arriving

This formal complaint was filed to the Complaints Commission of the Turks and Caicos Islands, after three years of institutional surveillance so repetitive, so medically reckless, so politely colonial — it became indistinguishable from harassment in slow motion.

The core facts:

  • The parent complied with all educational laws

  • The children were healthy, documented, and schooled

  • The mother had disabling respiratory illness

Yet despite this:

  • Unlawful home visits continued

  • Police were used to enforce attendance at the Ministry

  • A medical incident occurred on their premises

And even after all that?
They left the file open — “in case.”

This is not safeguarding. This is jurisdictional addiction.

II. What This Complaint Documented

This complaint was filed after obedience failed.
It includes allegations of:

  • Repeated breaches of medical shielding

  • Coercive requests for documents already submitted

  • Emotional harm to children through constant monitoring

  • The use of uniformed officers to enforce procedural humiliation

  • A complete absence of closure despite full compliance

It is not a request. It is a record of betrayal.

III. Who Was Involved

Named or implicated:

  • Ashley Adams-Forbes – orchestrating repeated visits

  • Truancy enforcement officers – untrained, unaccountable, and dispatched without legal basis

  • Ministry of Education staff – incapable of updating their own compliance records

  • Medical responders – present not as protectors, but as tools of compliance theatre

Let the record show: every name was already on file.
SWANK simply arranged the citation.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider repetitive intrusion to be care.
We do not confuse medical collapse with compliance failure.
We do not accept that silence from a Complaints Commission is neutrality.

This document was filed because:

  • The laws were followed

  • The mother was medically exempt

  • The record needed to exist — before they revised it

This is not vengeance. It is administrative survival.




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:

A Chronicle of Incompetence Cloaked in Bureaucratic Formality – A Disabled Mother’s Stand Against Institutional Arrogance


🏛️ On the Art of Institutional Incompetence: A Formal Complaint Against Westminster’s Finest

Date: 4 March 2025

✉️ To:

Westminster Children’s Services – Complaints Department

🖋️ Subject:

Formal Complaint – Conduct of Mr Ernie Wallace, Ms R P, and Ms Flora Saxophone (Westminster Children’s Services)

📜 Dear Complaints Team,

It is with a sense of exhausted precision—rather than hope—that I submit this formal complaint, detailing the conduct (or rather, misconduct) of three figures currently employed within your department:

  • Mr Ernie Wallace (Social Worker)

  • Ms R P (Manager)

  • Ms Flora Saxophone (Service Manager)

Their collective handling of my case has not merely failed to meet professional standards; it has plummeted into a veritable theatre of institutional negligence, medical indifference, and breathtaking managerial ineptitude.

🎭 I. Mr Ernie Wallace – The Master of Retraumatisation

  • Launched a wholly unsanctioned excavation of decade-old matters, causing extreme psychological distress without cause or legal basis.

  • Demanded immediate verbal responses despite my well-documented conditions (eosinophilic asthma and muscle tension dysphonia) that preclude such engagement.

  • Publicly professed a commitment to written communication, then systematically violated it during each subsequent visit.

  • After each encounter, my children and I predictably fell physically ill, a consequence for which Mr Wallace remains blissfully unconcerned.

  • Disseminated false and defamatory information to a consulting psychologist (Ms Leona Watermelon), falsely framing the matter as involving domestic violence—a fabrication of impressive audacity.

  • Displayed visible hostility when I could not perform verbal compliance, exposing a temperament wholly incompatible with his professional remit.

🎭 II. Ms R P – Choreographing the Theatre of Harm

  • In response to my detailed complaints, elected to send Mr Wallace back into my home for a grotesquely performative “farewell visit”, compounding trauma rather than resolving it.

🎭 III. Ms Flora Saxophone – The Curator of Coercion

  • Attempted to pressure the removal of security cameras—installed for lawful safeguarding purposes—thereby compromising both transparency and my documented disability accommodations.

  • Continued to demand verbal communication, despite being fully apprised of my inability to comply without severe medical risk.

  • Supervised and enabled a practice whereby social workers refused to engage with my children in my presence, insisting instead on removing them from view—a tactic both disturbing and ethically indefensible.

⚖️ IV. A Catalogue of Cumulative Failures

The collective behaviour of these individuals constitutes:

  • Neglect of safeguarding principles

  • Violation of disability accommodation obligations under the Equality Act 2010

  • Procedural retaliation and intimidation

  • Emotional, medical, and psychological harm to a vulnerable family

📜 V. Formal Requests for Redress

I therefore request, without the faintest hesitation:

  1. A comprehensive investigation into the conduct of Mr Wallace, Ms P, and Ms Saxophone.

  2. A written point-by-point response addressing each issue enumerated herein.

  3. A clear explanation of the measures Westminster intends to implement to prevent future families from enduring similar acts of administrative cruelty.

🖋️ Closing Observations

This is not merely a complaint. It is a testament to the systematic collapse of professional ethics within Westminster’s Children’s Services. I await your response—ideally composed with greater rigour than has thus far been displayed.

Yours, with meticulously documented indignation,
Polly
No comments:

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


🦚 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:

  • Mr. Ernie Wallace (Social Worker);

  • Ms. R P (Manager);

  • Ms. Flora Saxophone (Service Manager).

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Confirm whether these individuals will be referred to Social Work England,
    given the serious concerns regarding fitness to practise.

  4. 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



No comments:

Formal Complaint to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services – Concerning Ms. Sarah Newman’s Chronic Neglect of Duty at Senior Managerial Level


🦚 Formal Complaint to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services – Concerning Ms. Suzie Newbottom’s Chronic Neglect of Duty at Senior Managerial Level

Filed under the documentation of executive inertia, safeguarding abdication, and the ceremonial hollowing of public duty.

4 March 2025
To:
Complaints Team

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Ms Suzie Newbottom – Chronic Neglect of Duty at Senior Managerial Level (RBKC & Westminster Children’s Services)

📜 Dear Sir or Madam,

I submit this formal complaint concerning Ms. Suzie Newbottom,
Senior Manager for RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services,
whose persistent silence, refusal to intervene, and apparent disregard for escalating harm constitute not mere oversight,

but a sustained dereliction of statutory and ethical duty.

📚 I. Context: Circulated, Informed, and Unmoved

Over a period of eighteen months, I:

  • Directly contacted Ms. Newbottom;

  • Copied her into every formal complaint, safeguarding disclosure, and urgent correspondence.

These communications concerned misconduct by:

  • Mr. Ernie Wallace;

  • Ms. R P;

  • Ms. F Saxophone;

  • Ms. Kristen House.

Each document described, with forensic clarity:

  • My documented medical conditions — eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, PTSD;

  • The repeated retraumatisation, harassment, and health deterioration I and my child suffered;

  • The systemic refusal to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Ms. Newbottom was not peripheral.
She was directly and explicitly informed — repeatedly.

Her reply? Silence, curated to perfection.

📜 II. Failure in Leadership, Failure in Law

As a senior officer responsible for safeguarding governance, Ms. Newbottom was obligated to:

  • Respond seriously to safeguarding disclosures;

  • Ensure legal compliance concerning disability rights and reasonable adjustments;

  • Intervene proactively to prevent ongoing harm.

Her absolute non-response represents:

  • Complicity by omission;

  • Systemic failure not of information, but of institutional will.

Leadership, in this case, collapsed into ceremonial presence, unburdened by duty.

📚 III. Consequences of Her Inaction

Ms. Newbottom’s inaction enabled:

  • The continuation of misconduct by frontline staff under her purview;

  • The escalation of harm — physical, psychological, reputational — to myself and my child;

  • The breakdown of trust between myself and the Council — a breakdown for which she bears direct managerial responsibility.

This was not oversight.
It was an abandonment codified by silence.

📜 IV. Requested Actions

I respectfully request that Westminster and RBKC:

  1. Conduct a full investigation into Ms. Newbottom’s failure to fulfil her duties.

  2. Provide a formal explanation for her total non-response to repeated safeguarding concerns.

  3. Confirm whether her conduct has been, or will be, referred to Social Work England, for consideration of professional fitness.

  4. Issue a written assurance that such managerial non-responsiveness is not considered standard practice —

though the observable pattern would suggest otherwise.

📬 Final Observation

Ms. Newbottom’s role was not ceremonial.
She was copied into communications because she wielded authority —
authority she deliberately chose not to exercise.

By abdicating her duty, she transmuted professional responsibility into hollow title,
and safeguarding oversight into administrative theatre.

The consequences of her indifference are not theoretical.
They are lived realities — for myself and my children — continuing to this day.

📜 Yours sincerely,

With constitutional precision and archival determination,
Polly
No comments:

No School? No Peace. — A Timeline of Educational Retaliation by the State


⟡ Island Surveillance: A Timeline of Harassment in the Turks and Caicos ⟡

Filed: 21 July 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-TIMELINE-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF — 2020-07-21_SWANK_TCI_SocialDevTimeline_AAdamsF_JKennedy_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf

I. When the Island Refused to Let You Live Quietly

What begins as a homeschooling notice soon unfolds into a four-year cross-agency siege — complete with unlawful home visits, forced medical exposure, disability disregard, and the most colonial form of social work imaginable: a never-ending case with no purpose.

This timeline is not anecdotal. It is chronological evidence of:

  • Social workers yelling through windows

  • Repeated breaches of asthma-related shielding

  • Forced inspections under COVID-19 Emergency Powers

  • A parade of apologies issued only after violations occurred

They asked for your income, your credentials, your curriculum, your compliance — and after all that, still refused to close the case.

This was not protection. This was sustained jurisdictional trespass.

II. Key Figures in the Procedural Ballet

  • Ashley Adams-Forbes – Deputy Director, professional deflector.

  • Jaala Kennedy – Social worker, named throughout the harassment chain.

  • Mark Garland – Education official used as a shield when convenient, and discarded when not.

  • Unnamed truancy officer – Appears like a storm, disappears without accountability.

All appear in the timeline. All remain unapologetically unaccountable.

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because transnational surveillance is still surveillance.
Because being medically high-risk and home-educating your children should not trigger state suspicion.
Because a jurisdictional violation, whether in Westminster or Grand Turk, deserves to be filed with consequence.

Let the record show:

  • You complied with every law

  • You submitted every curriculum

  • You documented every intrusion

  • They documented none of their own

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider “random visits” to be harmless.
We do not accept “ongoing concerns” with no statutory basis.
We do not believe that colonial-style bureaucracy disguised as support is benign.

This wasn’t oversight.
This was procedural tourism with power fantasies attached.

And now, it is archived.
With names. With dates. With fury in Helvetica.
No comments: