“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 child safeguarding breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child safeguarding breach. Show all posts

In re: The Unlawful Seizure and Degrading Treatment of Four Medically Vulnerable U.S. Citizen Minors


They are not safe. They are being treated like trash.

They must be returned home immediately, where they will be safe and properly cared for.

If you have any information about their location, treatment, or safeguarding breaches:
Email: director@swanklondon.com
All reports remain anonymous.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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:

The Interview Was the Violation


⟡ Who Let Ben in the Room? Drayton Park’s Safeguarding Theatre ⟡

Filed: 15 November 2022
Reference: SWANK/EDUCATION/DRAYTON-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2022-11-15_SWANK_Letter_DraytonPark_ChildInterview_ConsentBreach_SafeguardingMisconduct.pdf

I. The Interview Was the Violation

This letter, issued formally to Drayton Park Primary School, records the parent’s legal and procedural objection to the unsanctioned interviewing of minor children by:

  • An unknown male staff member,

  • Operating without prior disclosure,

  • In the context of a fabricated safeguarding concern,

  • Under false pretences of educational support.

The child was startled.
The parent was excluded.
The trust was obliterated.
The “safeguarding” was theatre — performed without script or consent.

II. What They Did. What They Should Never Have Tried.

  • No notification before the interview

  • No documentation of parental consent

  • No disability adjustments respected

  • No adherence to trauma-informed safeguarding practice

This was not a meeting.
It was an extraction — performed with institutional stagecraft and pastel deception.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because safeguarding is not a loophole for intrusion.
Because unfamiliar men do not belong in closed rooms with startled children.
Because institutional performance cannot override documented parental refusal.

Let the record show:

  • The boundary was crossed

  • The procedure was unregulated

  • The staff were unaccountable

  • And SWANK — filed the rupture with timestamped contempt

This is not educational support.
It is evidentiary malpractice in a classroom costume.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept retroactive justification for inappropriate contact.
We do not permit fabricated concerns to create legal access to children.
We do not redact the names of schools that used safeguarding to sidestep consent.

Let the record show:

The children were startled.
The mother was silent — by medical necessity.
The system interpreted that as permission.
And SWANK — interpreted it as misconduct.

This isn’t safeguarding.
It’s unauthorised access via institutional ruse.




No comments: