“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 education harm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education harm. Show all posts

Governor Complaint Filed: Because Silence Is Not Resolution.


⟡ SWANK Institutional Oversight Archive ⟡

“The Bruise They Investigated. The Harm They Ignored.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GOVERNOR/DRAYTON-PARK/COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_GovernorComplaint_DraytonPark_SafeguardingMisuse_DisabilityHarm_Simlett.pdf

I. The Mark on the Child Was Temporary. The Institutional Harm Wasn’t.

This formal complaint was submitted to the Board of Governors at Drayton Park Primary School in May 2025. It concerns not just how the school responded to a minor bruise, but how that bruise was weaponised into a multi-agency safeguarding escalation against a disabled parent — with no lawful threshold and no procedural justification.

They said they were protecting the child.

What they were protecting was their paperwork.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • That the school:

    • Reported a bruise with no contextual follow-up

    • Bypassed standard communication protocols

    • Ignored written-only adjustments in place for disability

  • That the referral:

    • Was medically and procedurally unjustified

    • Ignored previous trauma to the family from safeguarding weaponisation

    • Led to cascading retaliation through social services, even as the child remained safe, well, and articulate

  • That Drayton Park failed to:

    • Assess the context of the mark

    • Communicate neutrally with the parent

    • Prevent known systemic harm from being re-triggered by an unnecessary referral

This wasn’t a safeguarding response.

It was an escalation reflex dressed in institutional caution.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a governor board is not a rubber stamp.
Because a parent’s disability is not a basis for suspicion.
Because bruises heal — but paper trails built on bias don’t disappear.

We filed this because:

  • The response was disproportionate

  • The process was opaque

  • The harm — psychological, procedural, and reputational — was real

  • And no one within the school stopped to ask: What does this referral cost a disabled family already under surveillance?

Let the record show:

  • The child was safe

  • The harm was institutional

  • The escalation was avoidable

  • And the complaint — is now public, precise, and archived

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not tolerate referrals made to protect liability rather than children.
We do not accept that marks on a body override respect for adjustments already on file.
We do not permit schools to act as handmaidens to systemic retaliation.

Let the record show:

The mark was used.
The parent was targeted.
The governors were informed.
And SWANK — filed it all.

This wasn’t vigilance.
It was institutional instinct to escalate — and let the family collapse under the consequence.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions