⟡ “Safeguarding Was Their Excuse. Retaliation Was Their Method. Silence Was OFSTED’s Role.” ⟡
We Filed in Court. Now We’ve Filed With the Regulator.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFSTED/ALERT-REISSUE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_Ofsted_ProtectiveSafeguardingAlert_USChildrenRemoved.pdf
Re-submission of formal safeguarding alert to Ofsted concerning the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children by Westminster Council during live litigation and in breach of safeguarding law.
I. What Happened
At 01:57 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic reissued a formal safeguarding alert to Ofsted’s Safeguarding and Regulation Team. The submission details the retaliatory removal of four disabled American minors on 22 June 2025 by Westminster Children’s Services. The action was taken without a court order, medical coordination, or disability accommodations. A Judicial Review, Emergency Reinstatement Request, and Emergency Injunction are all now live in the High Court. The lead child, Regal (age 16), was removed without documentation or autonomy acknowledgement.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Children were removed in breach of legal and regulatory safeguards
Disability access rights were ignored for both parent and children
No care plan or medical continuity was presented during removal
One child was legally old enough to object, and no such right was honoured
The removal followed direct legal action against Westminster — including a £23M civil claim
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was a bureaucratic reprisal masquerading as child protection.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you cannot claim oversight if you refuse to look.
Because Regal was taken while the courts were open and filings were active.
Because safeguarding doesn’t mean “removal by intimidation” — it means protection, which never occurred.
Because the regulator’s job is not to shield institutions from scandal — it’s to act before the archive does.
Because we are not sending notice for your awareness. We are sending it for your citation.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 31 – No lawful removal threshold presented
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access violations
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – No hearing; family life breached
UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – No legal process, no child consultation, disrupted medical care
Ofsted Regulatory Charter – Duty to investigate serious safeguarding failure
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a removal. It was an evidentiary hostage situation disguised as child welfare.
This wasn’t confusion. It was tactical removal under the shadow of an audit.
This wasn’t regulatory silence. It’s now regulatory implication.
SWANK does not file to be heard. We file so no one can say they didn’t know.
Ofsted has now been notified — twice.
This post is the jurisdictional proof.
⟡ 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.