19 Charges, Zero Reports — The State vs. One Mother With a Voice

 📢 SWANK Dispatch: Complaint Filed, System Indicted — A Maladministration Portfolio

🗓️ 1 July 2020

Filed Under: maladministration, forced medical exams, fence dismantling, complaint escalation, racial and philosophical discrimination, policy evasion, procedural breakdown, institutional retraumatisation

---

“If this is child protection, then tell me: who’s protecting them from you?”
— A Mother with a Legal Mind and an Asthmatic Lung

In this formidable submission to Mrs. Astwood of the Complaints Commission, dated 1 July 2020, Polly Chromatic brings a meticulously itemised formal complaint against the Department of Social Development in Grand Turk.

Not a grievance.
A case file.
Backed by documents, medical records, witness statements, and 19 grounds of maladministration.

Let us recount.

---

⚖️ I. Charges of Maladministration Include:

1. Unnecessary delays

2. Bias

3. Negligence

4. Improper procedures

5. Wrongful decisions

6. Improper service

7. Discourtesy

8. Performance failures

9. Discrimination (race, sex, age, education, parenting philosophy)

10. Harassment

11. Corruption

12. Abuse of power

13. Flawed internal processes

14. No justification for decisions

15. Lack of humane consideration

16. Unfairness

17. Incompetence

18. Arbitrariness

19. Mistake of law or fact

No exaggeration.
Each charge is backed by incident.

---

🔪 II. Physical and Emotional Violations

• May 2017: Her three sons were sexually assaulted on a hospital table by a state-appointed doctor under police and social work supervision.
• August 2019: Her fence was dismantled. Entry forced. No probable cause.
• COVID-19: Social workers entered against Emergency Powers, without masks, with no legal basis, despite her severe asthma.
• September 2019: Social workers hijacked her son’s birthday to interrogate the family over a fabricated vaccination claim.

Not a single one of these incidents was followed up with a report, a review, or an apology.

---

📚 III. Homeschooling as the Original Sin

Though approved by Mark Garland of the Ministry of Education, her choice to homeschool her children seems to have been the original offence in the eyes of the Department.

What followed was years of:

• Policy shifting
• Approval denial
• Truancy threats
• Investigations without cause

All while she submitted annual curricula, proof of education, and sought transparent cooperation.

---

🧠 IV. What She Asks for Is Not Vengeance — But Standards

She doesn’t want revenge. She wants:
• Communication
• Appointments
• Reports
• Due process
• Policy compliance
• Respect for her health and boundaries
• Consideration for her children’s dignity

---

💬 Final Words:

“Your assistance in investigating and resolving this matter would be extremely beneficial for my family as well as the public sphere.”

A citizen wrote a legal document.
A mother documented 3 years of unrelenting injustice.
SWANK now holds the archive.

---

Filed to the Foreign Desks: A Dispatch from the Disabled Front

---

⟡ This Isn’t a Complaint. It’s a Human Rights Dossier. ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/DIPLOMACY/UK-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_IntlHumanRightsBriefing_DisabilityRetaliation_Simlett_v_UK_DiplomaticSubmission.pdf

---

I. Filed to the Foreign Desks: A Dispatch from the Disabled Front

This document was transmitted directly to:

• EU diplomatic legal observers

• U.S. State Department human rights units

• Canadian federal disability rights offices

It was not shared for sympathy.
It was not styled for activism.
It was filed as a diplomatic intelligence briefing — formal evidence of:

• Coordinated safeguarding retaliation

• Housing endangerment by multiple UK boroughs

• Disability erasure under pretext of policy

• Procedural cruelty framed as “support”

You failed to protect domestically.
So we filed transnationally.

---

II. Not Advocacy. Strategy.

This briefing is structured with:

• Chronological case framing

• Procedural maps of institutional retaliation

• Legal reference to the Human Rights Act 1998, UNCRPD, and ICCPR

• Strategic grounds for diplomatic concern

This is not a request for help.
It is a record of your inaction, sent abroad.

It places the UK’s conduct on the table of foreign legal desks —
not as gossip, but as evidence.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because tribunals protect themselves.
Because local ombudsmen gatekeep harm.
Because the only form of safety is global documentation of what this country has done to disabled families in secret, with forms.

Let the record show:

• The mother was documented

• The children were endangered

• The retaliation was mapped

• And SWANK — sent it to Geneva, Brussels, Washington, and Ottawa

This isn’t escalation.
It’s sovereign testimony on a transnational stage.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe harm ends where jurisdiction begins.
We do not ask domestic regulators to correct abuses they enabled.
We do not wait for apology when we have documentation.

Let the record show:

The UK knew.
The documents were ready.
The retaliation was proven.
And SWANK — filed what Parliament refused to hear.

This isn’t a briefing.
It’s a velvet-wrapped indictment for the international shelf.

---

---

---

When Ethics Breach Procedure, We File to the Regulator

---

⟡ The Social Worker Who Retaliated Against My Medical Records ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HODGSON-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_RhiannonHodgson_DisabilityMisconduct_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf

---

I. When Ethics Breach Procedure, We File to the Regulator

This complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Rhiannon Hodgson, whose decisions directly violated:

• Documented disability adjustments

• Medical confidentiality

• The ethical framework of lawful safeguarding

• SWANK’s Written Communication Policy — ignored without hesitation

This was not casework.
It was reputational assassination under institutional badge.

---

II. What She Knew — and What She Did Anyway

At the time of her actions, Ms Hodgson:

• Possessed full documentation of medical trauma, adjustment policies, and PTSD-related restrictions

• Proceeded to call, escalate, and report without lawful cause

• Initiated risk frameworks while ignoring the risk she posed

• Positioned herself as “support” while functioning as state witness for retaliation

The files were clear.
She crossed them anyway.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because safeguarding is not a blunt instrument for punishment.
Because the moment a social worker sees medical documentation and escalates instead of adapts, they are no longer acting in care — but in coercion.
Because what they call “professional concern,” we call disability violation in report format.

Let the record show:

• The actions were not protective

• The behaviour was discriminatory

• The process was retaliatory

• And SWANK — filed, formatted, and named it for the public record

This isn’t a performance review.
It’s a regulator-grade transcript of ethical failure.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit professionals to violate disability law and hide behind “multidisciplinary team” dynamics.
We do not treat safeguarding as a shield for misconduct.
We do not redact names when harm is formatted.

Let the record show:

The adjustment was ignored.
The reports were retaliatory.
The ethics were breached.
And SWANK — filed what the courts will soon recognise.

This is not safeguarding.
It’s malpractice under a statutory header — and we filed it first.

---

---

---