⟡ “OFSTED: You Registered the Setting. You Ignored the Removal.” ⟡
We Filed Judicial Review. We Filed Emergency Injunction. We Are Now Filing With You.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFSTED/PROTECTIVE-ALERT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_Ofsted_ProtectiveSafeguardingAlert_USChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal safeguarding alert submitted to Ofsted regarding unlawful removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children by Westminster Council without due process, medical continuity, or threshold justification.
I. What Happened
At 01:57 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal safeguarding alert to Ofsted’s Regulation and Safeguarding Team following the removal of four U.S. citizen children from their home on 22 June 2025 by Westminster Children’s Services. The children — including 16-year-old Regal — were taken without warrant, without parental consent, and during a live Judicial Review against the council. No documentation was presented. No medical transition was arranged. No safeguarding threshold was disclosed.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Children were removed without legal basis, notice, or procedural threshold
The mother, a disabled U.S. citizen, was denied written-only communication access
One child, Regal, was taken despite legal autonomy and international protections
No effort was made to coordinate or preserve medical care (eosinophilic asthma treatment)
Risk of sibling separation, psychological harm, and medical endangerment is escalating
This wasn’t a regulatory oversight. It was a systemic failure so flagrant it begged for a timestamp.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because OFSTED isn’t just a name on a website — it is the regulator of the very authority that committed the act.
Because if you can log a nursery breach but ignore a coordinated, undocumented child removal — the archive will log you.
Because Regal’s disappearance is not a mystery. It’s an institutional export.
Because you do not get to monitor safeguarding while pretending not to see state-led abuse.
Because public regulation without enforcement is just bureaucracy in drag.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 31 – Removal without threshold or order
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of hearing and interference with family life
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Refusal to provide disability access to parent
UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – Separation without consent, denial of medical care, and child participation rights
Ofsted Regulatory Duties – Failure to initiate inquiry into unlawful safeguarding conduct
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t protection. It was child removal as state retaliation, committed under your regulatory silence.
This wasn’t a delay. It was a jurisdictional disgrace broadcast in plain language and medical records.
This wasn’t someone else’s job. It’s yours.
SWANK hereby notifies Ofsted that silence is now complicity.
We don’t file complaints for awareness. We file them to mark who failed to act.
This archive is not speculative. It is documented indictment — and this one now has your name on it.
⟡ 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.