“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 fitness to practise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fitness to practise. Show all posts

⟡ 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:

They Refused the Adjustments. Now the Regulator’s Investigating.


⟡ SWANK Regulatory Activation Notice ⟡

“Neglect Was Reported. The HCPC Opened a File.”
Filed: 14 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HCPC/FTP97702/WHITE/2025-05-14
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-14_SWANK_HCPCInvestigation_ElizabethWhite_DisabilityNeglect_AdjustmentRefusal.pdf

I. What She Called “Too Complex,” the Regulator Called Investigable.

On 14 May 2025, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) formally opened a fitness to practise investigation into Elizabeth White — a practitioner whose refusal to provide lawful documentation and disability accommodations compounded respiratory harm and procedural distress.

She was notified.
The file was opened.
The archive now holds the timestamp.

This wasn’t a therapy dispute.
This was a statutory breach dressed in clinical indifference.

II. What the Investigation Concerns

  • That Ms White refused to provide a requested clinical statement for disability adjustments

  • That her refusal caused delays in legal access, school protection, and care referrals

  • That her actions resulted in:

    • Emotional and procedural destabilisation

    • Further retaliation from institutions citing her silence

    • A collapse of trust in therapeutic care

Let it be understood:

Refusing adjustments is not neutrality. It is abandonment.
And now, it’s under investigation.

III. Why SWANK Is Publishing This

Because silence should not be misread as dismissal.
Because too often, professionals abuse bureaucracy to avoid accountability.
Because fitness to practise is not just a regulatory category — it is a forensic assessment of harm already done.

We publish this not for drama.
We publish this for permanence.

The state now agrees this merits inquiry.
So we have added it to the archive.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not beg therapists to write letters.
We document what happened when they didn’t.

We do not plead for recognition of harm.
We file it — and wait for the regulator to catch up.

Let the record show:

A complaint was filed.
An investigation began.
And now, every claim of “too complicated,” “too much,” or “I’m not sure I can write that”
lives in a file marked FTP97702.

And now, it also lives in SWANK.

⟡ 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:

Retaliation in the Guise of Professional Judgment


⟡ SWANK Regulatory Dispatch ⟡

“We Filed to Protect the Record, Not the Practitioner”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_SWEReferral_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityMisuse.pdf

I. The Referral Was Not Emotional. It Was Evidentiary.

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. delivered a formal referral to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal, Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services.

The purpose?
To record conduct so profoundly misaligned with law, ethics, and dignity that no self-respecting archive could omit it.

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal composed an email which declared Westminster’s intention to “apply to court for a supervision order.” The problem?

  • There was no risk.

  • There was no meeting.

  • There was no legal threshold.

  • And it arrived in the context of active litigation and disability-based communication adjustments — all deliberately ignored.

This was not a safeguarding decision.
It was a professional tantrum dressed in statutory costume.

II. The Standards She Violated — And Why They Matter

We are not interested in polite reformulations of power abuse.
We are interested in consequences.

Ms Hornal’s actions breach the following Social Work England Code of Ethics:

  • 1.6 – Failing to respect documented adjustments

  • 1.9 – Misusing professional power

  • 2.2 – Collapsing professional boundaries into personal retaliation

  • 5.4 – Failing to raise concerns when harm is enacted through process

Her correspondence did not safeguard.
It destabilised, discriminated, and deliberately weaponised ambiguity.

III. The Institutional Style of Threat

This is not a rogue act. It is a style.

A recognisable state aesthetic:
➤ vague legalism
➤ denial of intent
➤ undermining of procedural safeguards
➤ and always, a tone of pastel professionalism to disarm the charge

But SWANK is not disarmed.
We file, we index, and we expose the choreography.

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
— She thought it was a brush-off. We filed it as Exhibit B.

IV. SWANK’s Position

Regulators exist not to polish misconduct but to excise it.
This referral does not seek re-education. It seeks removal.

Ms Hornal’s conduct demonstrates a professional who no longer serves the function she is paid to perform:
Safeguarding life, not threatening it.

We are not aggrieved. We are archiving.
And this record now lives forever — beyond HR, beyond FOIA evasion, and certainly beyond the reach of polite deletion.

⟡ 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:

This Was Never About Safeguarding


⟡ SWANK Referral Record ⟡

“We’re Not Reporting a Social Worker. We’re Reporting a Pattern.”
Filed: 3 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-03_SWANK_Referral_KirstyHornal_FitnessToPractise_ThreatMisuse.pdf

I. The Referent: Ms. Kirsty Hornal

This formal referral to Social Work England (SWE) concerns Kirsty Hornal, a Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services, whose conduct now requires regulatory scrutiny on the grounds of:

  • Retaliatory safeguarding threats

  • Disability discrimination

  • Abuse of statutory language to exert coercive pressure

  • Ethical erosion in public service

We are not interested in “poor communication.”
We are documenting the misuse of power — cloaked in procedure, deployed via email.

II. The Offence: A Threat With No Process

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal stated in writing that Westminster was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

There was no:

  • Safeguarding trigger

  • Risk assessment

  • Multi-agency meeting

  • Legal basis under the Children Act 1989

  • Procedural compliance with PLO (Public Law Outline)

The only evident context was this:

The claimant — a disabled mother of four — had recently filed formal complaints, enforcement notices, and a civil claim against Westminster.

And in response, Ms Hornal threatened court action via email.

This is not safeguarding.
This is what safeguarding looks like when turned against the complainant.

III. Adjustment Breach and Retaliatory Tone

This email — like its follow-up — violated a written-only communication adjustment grounded in medical diagnosis, legal notice, and disability legislation.

The response to a formal demand letter (sent 24 May) was not resolution. It was redirection:

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
A statement so dry it almost smoked.

What it wasn’t:

  • An answer

  • A safeguarding explanation

  • A lawful reply to medical or legal assertions

What it was:

  • A refusal to acknowledge accountability

  • An institutional threat, barely disguised as process

IV. Grounds for Referral (SWE Code of Ethics Breaches)

The referral identifies breaches of:

  • 1.6 – Failure to respect disability adjustments

  • 1.9 – Abuse of professional power

  • 2.2 – Breakdown of professional boundaries

  • 5.4 – Failure to report unsafe conduct by colleagues

This is not a matter of one message.
This is the culmination of a pattern — documented, repeated, and logged — wherein “safeguarding” has been distorted into a disciplinary weapon.

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not report individuals out of pique. We report conduct that endangers.
And we archive it when institutions pretend it didn’t happen.

Westminster’s safeguarding practice — as personified by Ms. Hornal — has ceased to serve the child and begun to discipline the parent.
We decline to be disciplined for resisting harm.

This referral, and its accompanying exhibits, have been submitted to SWE, logged in a County Court claim, and appended to an ongoing archive of institutional retaliation.

Let the record show: we were calm. They escalated.


⟡ 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:

Registered to Retaliate. — When Safeguarding Becomes a Weapon, and the Regulator’s Watching


⟡ Fabricated Referrals. Retaliatory Safeguarding. Complaint Filed. ⟡

“The harm described is not merely professional misconduct — it includes criminal-level coercion.”

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/CRIMINAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_SocialWorkEngland_CriminalSafeguardingMisuse_Complaint.pdf
A formal complaint to Social Work England requesting a regulatory investigation into retaliatory safeguarding threats, fabricated referrals, and misconduct by registered professionals. The misconduct was procedural. The harm was real.

I. What Happened

On 29 May 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., filed a formal complaint to Social Work Englandagainst practitioners involved in a pattern of safeguarding misuse.

The complaint outlines:

  • Fabricated safeguarding referrals made without statutory trigger

  • Unlawful interviews with children, conducted in violation of both consent and process

  • Retaliation for filing civil claims and police complaints

  • Obstruction of medical accommodations, including refusal to comply with a written-only communication policy

  • A coordinated multi-agency pattern of coercive, dishonest, and harassing behaviour

The complaint cites the following laws:

  • Children Act 1989

  • Fraud Act 2006

  • Human Rights Act 1998

  • Equality Act 2010

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That safeguarding was not a protection tool — it was a punishment mechanism

  • That the professionals involved used state systems to retaliate, not to protect

  • That legal escalation was met with procedural harassment

  • That Social Work England is now on notice — and on record

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the power to remove a child must never be retaliatory.
Because complaints must not trigger safeguarding threats.
Because any professional who fabricates protection concerns is unfit to practice — and fully fit to archive.

This is not emotional.
This is regulatory.
This is a complaint built for referral, oversight, and audit.
And now it belongs to the public.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding as code for surveillance.
We do not accept referrals without basis, interviews without consent, or regulation without accountability.
We do not accept that the professionals behind these harms are still registered.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the complaint is ignored,
The archive is not.
If the register protects misconduct,
We’ll publish what it shields.
And if silence follows this filing,
We’ll document that too.

⟡ 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