“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: Post-Removal “Family Time” Email Sent Despite Active Legal Proceedings and Misconduct Referrals


⟡ “They Took the Children Without Consent. Then They Sent an Email About ‘Family Time’ — as If the Archive Hasn’t Already Filed Four Court Actions.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Contact Planning. It Was Institutional Gaslight — CC’ed to the Source of Harm.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTACT-PRETEXT-POSTREMOVAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_FamilyTime_SamBrown_HornalAttached.pdf
Email sent by Sam Brown (Westminster) offering “family time” days after the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children under a procedurally deficient Emergency Protection Order.

I. What Happened

At 13:10 on 24 June 2025 — less than 48 hours after forcibly removing Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — Sam Brown of Westminster Children’s Services emailed Polly Chromatic attaching a letter about “family time.”

The message was sent without any reference to:

  • The fact that removal occurred under active Judicial Review

  • The pending EPO discharge application and emergency contact filings

  • The diplomatic protection request filed with the U.S. Embassy

  • The prior request to cease all contact with Kirsty Hornal, who was cc’ed anyway

The sender addressed the parent by her full legal name — despite formal notice to use Polly Chromatic — and disregarded written-only disability accommodations.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster initiated informal communication while formal legal processes were underway

  • Kirsty Hornal was included on the message despite formal removal and misconduct referrals

  • The tone of the email attempted to normalise the unlawful removal

  • The archive was openly disregarded as jurisdictional authority

  • Contact was framed as a casual option — not as a right that was violated

This wasn’t scheduling. It was rebranding violence as visitation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no email about “family time” can be taken seriously when the removal was unlawful.
Because communication isn’t neutral when it comes from the same system that excluded the parent from court.
Because cc’ing the perpetrator isn’t protocol — it’s retaliatory formatting.
Because informal offers cannot erase formal violations.
Because we don’t take meetings. We file complaints. And we post them.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 34 – Contact rights infringed under unlawful order

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Written-only access needs ignored

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Right to fair hearing and family life denied

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Attempted informal contact undermines formal legal process

  • Data Protection and Conduct Duties – Use of legal name and cc’ing of named officer after formal removal request

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t family time. It was institutional revisionism sent via Outlook.
This wasn’t a gesture. It was procedural mockery staged as courtesy.
This wasn’t an error. It was a tactical minimisation of trauma, responsibility, and law.

SWANK hereby archives this email as an example of post-removal gaslight-by-template.
You don’t get to remove the children unlawfully and follow up with a meeting invite.
You don’t get to rebrand harm as routine.
And you definitely don’t get to CC Kirsty Hornal — not after everything.

⟡ 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