“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 supervisory breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supervisory breach. Show all posts

Safeguarding Wasn’t the Breach. His Endorsement Was.


⟡ The Supervisor Who Approved Retaliation as Policy ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PEACHE-MISCONDUCT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_GlenPeache_SafeguardingRetaliation_DisabilityMisconduct_SupervisoryBreach.pdf

I. Safeguarding Wasn’t the Breach. His Endorsement Was.

This complaint to Social Work England names Glen Peache, a senior official whose conduct did not merely overlook abuse — it codified it into workflow.

The charges include:

  • Ratification of retaliatory safeguarding action against a disabled parent

  • Knowingly breaching a written-only adjustment in a supervisory capacity

  • Failing to intervene when caseworkers weaponised contact procedures

  • Allowing trauma documentation to be dismissed without consequence

The misconduct wasn’t rogue.
It was managerial — and approved by font.

II. When Supervision Becomes Strategy

Peache’s position granted him:

  • Oversight of known discriminatory patterns

  • Authority to de-escalate harm — which he declined

  • Access to protected health data and procedural violations

  • A professional obligation to intervene, not amplify

Instead:

  • He authorised the very breaches reported

  • Shielded staff behind “process”

  • Permitted silence as a form of defence

He supervised retaliation.
SWANK supervised the filing.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because supervision is not a loophole.
Because retaliation in the name of “procedure” is still abuse.
Because when misconduct becomes endorsed, every line manager becomes a named party.

Let the record show:

  • The adjustment was in writing

  • The safeguarding threat was tactical

  • The supervision was informed

  • And SWANK — filed, formatted, and timestamped the entire structure

This wasn’t inaction.
It was policy-grade harm, notarised at the managerial level.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not excuse oversight failures when they enable institutional abuse.
We do not accept that managers can feign ignorance of coordinated harm.
We do not redact names once the supervision becomes the strategy.

Let the record show:

He read the files.
He approved the breach.
He oversaw the harm.
And SWANK — filed the evidence to Social Work England.

This isn’t a rogue incident.
It’s the supervisory system as accomplice — and we filed the chain of command.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions