Cooperation Is Not a Performance. It’s a Right — And I Exercised It.

---

⟡ “Refusing Abuse Is Not Refusing to Cooperate” ⟡
A formal statement of participation, legal boundaries, and what it really means to engage — lawfully, strategically, and with proof.

Filed: 20 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-12
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-20_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOResponse_ClarifyingCooperation.pdf
Formal letter from Polly Chromatic to Kirsty Hornal rebutting any suggestion of “non-engagement.” The letter reaffirms written-only communication, clarifies lawful refusals, and asserts the parent’s ongoing cooperation — on legal, not coercive, terms.

---

I. What Happened

By 20 April 2025, Westminster had already escalated safeguarding processes in retaliation for complaint. Now, they were reframing that retaliation as a problem with parental cooperation. This letter shuts that narrative down — thoroughly, respectfully, and legally.

Polly Chromatic:

• Reiterates written-only communication based on medical advice

• Clarifies the basis for declining verbal conversations and invasive tests

• Confirms past and current participation — in writing, with evidence

• Warns that misrepresenting these actions would constitute procedural misconduct

• Demands all correspondence and adjustments be included in Westminster’s internal record

It is a calm but firm declaration: non-verbal ≠ non-cooperative.

---

II. What the Letter Establishes

• Disability adjustments are not barriers to cooperation — they are the lawful format of it

• Refusing unlawful or unsafe procedures is not obstruction — it’s protection

• Westminster’s prior contact, meetings, and ongoing emails confirm full engagement

• The narrative of “non-engagement” is a deliberate distortion with legal consequences

• Any omission of these facts in official records will be treated as evidence manipulation

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This letter exists for one reason: because Westminster has shown it will twist compliance into resistance when it suits them. SWANK archived this file to ensure that when they claim the parent refused to cooperate, the truth — and the evidence — will already be on record.

SWANK filed this to:

• Defend against the misuse of “non-cooperation” as a procedural weapon

• Preemptively correct the record with written confirmation of engagement

• Assert legal participation on grounds of disability rights and lawful boundary-setting

---

IV. Violations (If Ignored or Misrepresented)

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27 (adjustments and retaliation)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

• Social Work England Standards – Truthfulness in recordkeeping, respect for client rights

• UK GDPR – Inaccurate or omitted data in official records

• Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding frameworks and harm through administrative dishonesty

---

V. SWANK’s Position

Refusing a test is not refusing to engage. Declining to speak is not silence. The law is not verbal. And compliance is not owed — especially not when coercion is dressed as concern.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

• Full correction of all Westminster records that refer to “non-cooperation”

• Explicit inclusion of this letter in all internal assessments and review panels

• Regulatory investigation if any officer continues to misstate the family’s position

---

⟡ 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.