“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

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Consular Complaint Over Language-Based Exclusion of Children’s Father


⟡ “They Sent a Court Notice in the Wrong Language — and Called That Inclusion.” ⟡
If You Can’t Read the System, You Don’t Get to Resist It. Welcome to Globalised Safeguarding.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-FAILURE-KREYOL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_LanguageBarrier_ConsularBreach.pdf
Formal report to the U.S. Embassy concerning Westminster’s failure to provide court communication in Haitian Kreyòl to the children’s father.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal communication to U.S. consular authorities documenting a language-based procedural failure by Westminster Children’s Services. The father of four U.S. citizen children — who resides in Turks and Caicos and speaks Haitian Kreyòl — received a UK court-related message written entirely in English. The language barrier rendered him unable to understand, respond to, or participate in proceedings concerning the sudden removal of his children from the United Kingdom. No interpreter was provided. No follow-up occurred. The exclusion was total.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A parent of record was contacted in a language he does not speak

  • No attempt was made to provide translation or accessible communication

  • The father was therefore procedurally excluded from safeguarding and care decisions

  • UK authorities had prior knowledge of his linguistic needs and ignored them

  • This occurred in the context of a retaliatory removal from the other parent

This was not communication. It was jurisdictional tokenism via SMS.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because parental rights are not conditional on fluency in the empire’s language.
Because international safeguarding cannot be reduced to a monolingual text thread.
Because translation is not an optional courtesy — it’s a legal requirement.
Because when a father is asked to participate in a hearing he cannot linguistically access, the court is not functioning. It’s posturing.
Because this was not a failure. It was design.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 – Denial of fair hearing and participation

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Separation from parents without full participation

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to remove communication barriers

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No clear consular coordination with both U.S. parents

  • Children Act 1989 – Lack of lawful notice or involvement of both parents in decision-making

  • International Safeguarding Protocols – Noncompliance with linguistic inclusion obligations

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t notification. It was linguistic exclusion masquerading as outreach.
This wasn’t failure. It was a strategy of quiet omission.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was state-sponsored incoherence — imposed on a foreign father.

SWANK documents this not only as a consular red flag, but as a violation of legal dignity.
The archive will not treat silence as neutrality — or English as default.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.

Documented Obsessions