⟡ SWANK Education Retaliation Archive ⟡
“They Called It Inclusion. We Filed It as Interrogation.”
Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFSTED/DRAYTON-PARK-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_OfstedComplaint_DraytonPark_SafeguardingDiscrimination_DisabilityAbuse_Simlett.pdf
I. The Question Was Asked Alone. The Complaint Was Filed Publicly.
This formal report was submitted to Ofsted on 22 April 2025. It details how safeguarding was used as a covert surveillance mechanism — not to protect a child, but to monitor a disabled mother with a history of lawful complaint.
At the centre of it:
A child questioned alone by Ben Pritchard
No warning, no consent
No justification — except institutional suspicion wrapped in polite forms
They called it a check-in.
SWANK called it what it was: retaliation through procedure.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That staff at Drayton Park:
Initiated a safeguarding inquiry without disclosure
Questioned a child without parental presence
Failed to consider prior harm caused by social services escalation
Disregarded disability adjustments in place for the mother
That this pattern:
Mimics previous council retaliation strategies
Violates Article 8 (private and family life) and the Equality Act 2010
Was triggered by institutional discomfort with lawful complaint, not child safety
This was not about protection.
It was data-gathering via the child — because the parent refused to comply.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because every escalation has a pretext.
Because a child questioned without support is a red flag — not a safeguarding measure.
Because institutional cowardice hides in safeguarding forms and smiles.
We filed this because:
The questioning was inappropriate
The breach was legal, not just ethical
The pattern matched previous retaliation logged across councils, trusts, and services
And Ofsted needed to be told — with evidence, not pleading
Let the record show:
The school didn’t investigate harm.
It created it.
The parent wasn’t at risk.
She was targeted.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not permit safeguarding to be weaponised as feedback suppression.
We do not tolerate professionals using children to backchannel surveillance.
We do not accept that education staff can violate adjustments with impunity.
Let the record show:
The name was listed.
The action was logged.
The harm was measured.
And SWANK — does not leave unlawful questioning undocumented.
This wasn’t care.
It was interrogation by proxy — and now it’s public.
⟡ 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.