📎 SWANK Dispatch: The Child Protection Plan Is a Script, Not a Safeguard
🗓️ 14 March 2024
Filed Under: child protection plan critique, Edward Kendall misconduct, safeguarding theatre, homeschooling bias, procedural coercion, mental health discrimination, institutional paranoia, GP override, Section 47 inflation, father contact pretext
“Every ten days,
a man I’ve never met
will enter my home
to confirm that I’m not dangerous
for being too educated,
too isolated,
and too articulate.”
— Polly Chromatic, subject of a safeguarding plan for answering too well
This Conference Outline Plan issued by Edward Kendall, social worker for Westminster City Council, formalises a Child Protection Plan for Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir Bonne Annee — based on speculative concerns, circular justifications, and a bureaucratic hunger for visibility disguised as care.
Among the key “worries”:
That Polly Chromatic is homeschooling too well, too privately, and with too much competence
That her mental health must be assessed, despite clear documentation from her GP
That her children aren’t seen by professionals enough (because they are… healthy and well-regulated?)
That her children’s father hasn’t been contacted, though no concern was raised by the children themselves
🗂️ I. The Plan’s Fragile Logic
| Worry | Solution | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| “Mother is homeschooling” | Education team must inspect home | “You’re not using our buildings, so we need to enter yours.” |
| “Children aren’t seen by enough professionals” | Social worker visits every 10 days | “We don’t trust children unless they’re supervised by the state.” |
| “We don’t know the father’s role” | Noelle must provide father’s info | “We need another adult to pressure.” |
| “Mental health concern” | Mental health assessment by GP or in-house psych | “We don’t like how you write.” |
📌 II. The Safety Goals Are Scripts, Not Outcomes
The “goals” listed read like generic prompts from a child protection generator:
“Children to be seen and deemed safe”
“Polly to gain support”
“Father to be contacted”
“Education team to provide a service”
Not one concern is grounded in evidence of harm. All are rooted in a discomfort with autonomy, especially when paired with articulate resistance.
🧾 SWANK Commentary
You ask:
“What are we worried about?”
And the answer —
with quiet certainty —
is that you are worried about
not being needed.
So you create the need.
You declare danger
in what is merely difference.
You demand access
where none is required.
And you call it
protection.