“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: Supervision Package Served Illegally and in Violation of Disability Access


⟡ “Two Visits. No Name. No Badge. Just a Man at My Door With a Package Marked ‘Supervision.’” ⟡
This Wasn’t Notification. It Was Theatrical Misconduct — And They Performed It Twice.

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/UNAUTHORISED-SERVICE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Statement_Westminster_ImproperPackageDelivery_PreRemovalMisconduct.pdf
Formal submission documenting improper and unacknowledged attempts by Westminster Children’s Services to serve supervision-related paperwork prior to the unlawful removal of four children.

I. What Happened

On 17 June and 20 June 2025, an unidentified man arrived unannounced at the home of Polly Chromatic, looked through her private mail chute, and attempted to deliver a package marked “Supervision.” The man did not provide a name, badge, or service documentation. Due to disability-related trauma and vocal limitations, the door was not opened. The interaction was captured on video and later reviewed by her solicitor. It revealed official documentation — served improperly, in violation of access requirements and without legal notice.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • No legal service record, identity verification, or hearing notice was issued

  • Visits violated documented communication accommodations filed since 2023

  • The delivery agent’s behaviour (peering into mail chute, verbal intrusion) was coercive and undocumented

  • No meaningful opportunity to respond before the 23 June 2025 removal

  • The sequence suggests a deliberate avoidance of proper legal protocol to trigger removal without defence

This wasn’t service. It was strategic concealment cloaked in unmarked packaging.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because supervision packages don’t belong in mail slots — especially not from men without ID.
Because you cannot fabricate compliance with the Children Act by appearing at the door twice without paperwork.
Because safeguarding doesn’t begin with surveillance. It begins with law, and that law was not followed.
Because when the council knows you're disabled, ignores it, and sends a man to your door anyway — that isn’t oversight. It’s targeted breach.
Because intimidation delivered before a removal is still part of the removal.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled recipient

  • Children Act 1989 – No proper notice, planning, or hearing provided

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Invasion of private life via unconsented entry attempt and monitoring

  • Social Work England Standards – Breach of conduct regarding fair, transparent, and ethical practice

  • Procedural Fairness – Attempted circumvention of legal representation and service requirements

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t pre-removal logistics. It was pre-removal sabotage.
This wasn’t accidental mishandling. It was intentional procedural misconduct performed for deniability.
This wasn’t just intimidation. It was an institutional dress rehearsal for retaliation.

SWANK has filed this as an evidentiary event and jurisdictional breach.
We are not asking for confirmation.
We are preserving proof — and publishing what they tried to slide under the door.

⟡ 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