Claim Statement – Racially Motivated Harassment by the Family of Silk A

---

🧾 Annex to N1 Claim Form

Claim Statement – Racially Motivated Harassment by the Family of Silk A

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Jurisdiction: London, United Kingdom
Defendant(s): The immediate family of Silk A, associated with 666 Mulberry Road, ND6
To be included as: Annexed evidence within the Civil Claim filed under the High Court reference N1 Claim Form – Master Abuse Record Bundle
📮 pollychromatic@me.com

---

I. 🎭 Summary of Claim

This claim is brought not against Silk A himself, but against the ambient hostility cultivated and performed by his immediate family. The conduct in question reflects a deliberate and racially motivated exclusion of the claimant and her children — a white mother raising mixed-race children — on the basis of cultural, ethnic, and racial prejudice.

Their conduct was not subtle. It was ritualistic, rehearsed, and rigid, operating with the cold polish of generational bias dressed in cultural performance.

The result:

• Psychological injury

• Social erasure

• Disability destabilisation

And beneath it all: a silent, racialised refusal to acknowledge the claimant’s humanity.

---

II. 📜 Factual Background

Between 2021 and 2025, the claimant was in a committed relationship with Mr. Silk A. Throughout the relationship, his immediate family, residents of North West London, exhibited the following sustained behaviours:

• Refusal to acknowledge the claimant's existence, despite proximity and relational context

• Persistent exclusion from family space and conversation, with no invitation, greeting, or relational recognition

• Explicit commentary indicating racial and cultural rejection: the family would “never accept” a white woman raising mixed-race children

• Zero integration attempts, despite the claimant’s repeated efforts and the visibility of her relationship with their son

This was not interpersonal friction. It was racially motivated social quarantining, enforced through silence, surveillance, and strategic omission.

The emotional environment produced was one of unspoken banishment — the kind of harm that does not shout, but corrodes.

---

III. ⚖️ Legal Basis for the Claim

This claim is grounded in established statutory and human rights law. The following frameworks are invoked:

• Equality Act 2010, Sections 26 & 27: Racial harassment and victimisation

• Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Course of conduct causing alarm and distress

• Article 8, ECHR: Interference with private and family life by hostile third parties

• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Harm (common law tort): For systemic psychological injury

The discriminatory environment, though executed privately, had public and health-related consequences and was compounded by the family’s wilful cultural gatekeeping.

---

IV. 🧾 Evidence

The following evidence substantiates the pattern of harm:

• Witness Statement: “Hate Crime Witness Statement – Partner’s Family”

• Contemporaneous digital records, emails, and notes documenting emotional impact and exclusion

• Medical records: Demonstrating correlation between psychological deterioration and episodes of familial rejection

• Record of failed interventions: Where support was sought but social exclusion persisted or worsened

---

V. 💷 Damages Claimed

The claimant seeks civil damages in the amount of £50,000, or such sum as the court deems appropriate, inclusive of:

• General damages for racial harassment and emotional injury

• Aggravated damages for the insidious, repeated, and identity-targeted nature of the discrimination

• Exemplary damages for the exacerbation of pre-existing disability and unlawful interference with social inclusion

This claim is filed not only as restitution for harm caused, but as a formal repudiation of cultural cruelty masked as familial prerogative.

---

Respectfully and unflinchingly submitted by:
Polly Chromatic
📍 London, United Kingdom
📮 pollychromatic@me.com
🖋️ Let the silence they used become the evidence I submit.

---