“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 safeguarding complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safeguarding complaint. Show all posts

The Index Beside the Bomb.


⟡ SWANK Filing Index: Human Rights Evidence Tracker ⟡

“What They’ll Pretend Not to Have Read.”
Filed: 9 February 2024
Reference: SWANK/HUMAN-RIGHTS/COMPLAINT/DOCUMENTATION-SUMMARY
📎 Download PDF – 2024-02-09_SWANK_HumanRightsComplaint_Documentation_SummaryRecord.pdf

I. This Is the Index Beside the Bomb.

What you are reading is not a complaint.
It is the complaint’s memory — catalogued, timestamped, and linked beyond plausible denial.

This document provides:

  • A structured, navigable record of every supporting file, claim, citation, and breach

  • A blueprint for regulators who will claim the archive was “too long” to understand

  • And a trap for procedural amnesia: now publicly filed and cross-indexed

If the master complaint is the thunder,
this is the ledger of lightning.

II. What the Summary Contains

  • A formal breakdown of every exhibit filed under:

    • Medical negligence

    • Safeguarding retaliation

    • Disability rights violations

    • Multi-agency misconduct

  • File names, legal relevance, and evidentiary tags to prevent erasure-by-ambiguity

  • An administrative rebuttal to every bureaucrat who will later whimper:

    “We didn’t know where to look.”

They have no excuse.

We numbered the doors.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no complaint survives institutional misreading without a companion document that corners the reader.

Because evidence is not enough.

It must be archived strategically — and framed with anticipation of every dodge, delay, and denial tactic available to the state.

This isn’t a formality.
It is a mechanism of accountability.

We filed it because:

  • The document exists

  • The file path is fixed

  • The reader is now responsible for what they pretend not to see

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe in “missing documents.”
We believe in institutional filtration by design.

We do not trust reviews.
We build our own index, cross-reference it, and publish before they redact.

Let the record show:

The complaint is filed.
The documents are listed.
The order is fixed.
The ignorance is no longer plausible.

This isn’t supporting material.
This is the paper that ensures they can’t look away.

⟡ 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:

Regulation 9 Invoked to Protect the Accused — Not the Harmed


⟡ “Too Late to Investigate — But Not Too Late to Archive.” ⟡
RBKC Formally Refuses to Investigate Complaint Against Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, Citing Regulation 9

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Regulation9Refusal_WedgeBull_Troyan.pdf
Summary: RBKC cites Regulation 9 to reject a formal complaint against social workers Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan, despite medical barriers and previously denied closure.

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2025, you submitted a formal complaint regarding misconduct by Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan. RBKC responded on 27 May 2025, stating that:

– The matters occurred more than 12 months ago
– The case is therefore “out of time” under Regulation 9
– You failed (allegedly) to justify why the complaint was not submitted sooner
– No further investigation will be undertaken
– They acknowledge you’ve copied in the Local Government Ombudsman

RBKC’s response does not acknowledge your previously submitted complaints, your lack of consent to closure, or your disability-based communication barriers.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC is invoking Regulation 9 as a shield, despite prior contact and known barriers
• Procedural timelines are used to erase misconduct, not to protect complainants
• Safeguarding professionals remain uninvestigated due to bureaucratic thresholds
• There is no attempt to address retaliation, harassment, or discriminatory behaviour
• You are referred to the LGSCO — effectively forced to escalate because of administrative avoidance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when institutions say “too late,” they’re not talking about the harm — they’re talking about the paperwork.
Because Regulation 9 is meant to protect administrators, not survivors.
Because procedural fencing should never override disability access, trauma timelines, or prior mismanagement.

SWANK documents every refusal disguised as a rule — and every silence built on timing.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Regulation 9 can be used to silence retaliatory complaints.
We do not accept that prior submission without consent to closure can be erased.
We do not accept that safeguarding failures become acceptable after 365 days.

This wasn’t a time limit. It was an institutional escape hatch.
And SWANK will record every refusal that dared to call itself lawful.

⟡ 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:

Your Harm Has Been Logged. Estimated Resolution: Unknown.


⟡ “Your Complaint Has Been Logged — Now Please Wait Indefinitely.” ⟡
Social Work England Acknowledges Email Harassment by a Social Worker — and Files It for Later

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_SWE_CasePT10413_SamBrownComplaintQueued.pdf
Summary: Social Work England confirms a formal complaint against Sam Brown is active (Case PT-10413), but cannot provide a timeline for triage or investigation.

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, a formal Fitness to Practise complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding Sam Brown, a social worker at Westminster Children’s Services. The complaint cited repeated encrypted email contact despite a written-only medical adjustment, constituting email harassment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory behaviour.

Social Work England responded on 29 May 2025, confirming the complaint had been logged as Case PT-10413 and is awaiting triage. No timeline was provided. The complainant was informed that they would be contacted eventually for confirmation and further evidence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability-adjusted communication requests are being ignored by state social workers
• Sam Brown made contact via encrypted platforms after being explicitly instructed not to
• Social Work England acknowledges the behaviour as triage-worthy, but imposes open-ended delay
• The system has no urgency protocol for retaliatory abuse related to legal proceedings
• Complaints about safeguarding retaliation are treated as passive case files, not active protection needs

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even when a professional regulator receives evidence of harassment and rights violation, the institutional response is still a queue.
Because the role of a regulator should be to intervene, not to monitor from a distance while misconduct continues.
Because when fitness to practise systems cannot move quickly in cases involving retaliation, they become complicit through inaction.

SWANK archives the moment a regulator nodded — and then paused.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a formal complaint involving harassment and medical adjustment breaches can be deferred indefinitely.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation should be handled on a first-come, first-assigned basis.
We do not accept that state social workers can weaponise encrypted platforms with impunity.

This wasn’t triage. This was procedural stalling.
And SWANK will document every day between “we received it” and “we acted.”

⟡ 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