“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

Documented Obsessions

They Withdrew Support to Prove I Didn’t Deserve It — Then Punished Me for Saying That Out Loud


⟡ “They Closed the Support Plan. Then Escalated the Case. The Only Thing That Changed Was: I Filed a Complaint.” ⟡
A formal complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services detailing how safeguarding procedures were used not to protect — but to punish. This is the written proof that complaint equals escalation.

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/FCS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliation_CINClosure_PLOAbuse.pdf
Complaint letter submitted to joint safeguarding teams for Westminster and RBKC documenting disability discrimination, emotional injury, cultural erasure, and the procedural transformation of support into surveillance. CIN closed after police report. PLO initiated days later.

I. What Happened

This is the complaint that names the cycle:

  1. Medical injury documented

  2. Support requested

  3. Complaint filed

  4. Support withdrawn

  5. Retaliation escalated

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted this complaint to Westminster and RBKC. It names:

  • Verbal coercion despite psychiatric confirmation of medical harm

  • The closure of the Child in Need plan after the parent reported the authority to police

  • Immediate PLO escalation as retribution, not protection

  • The refusal to provide culturally safe or adjusted social work allocation

  • The weaponisation of communication preferences as non-compliance

It also confirms that both boroughs had full access to medical and legal evidence before taking these steps — and proceeded anyway.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • CIN was not support. It was surveillance.

  • Once challenged, that surveillance was revoked and replaced with threat

  • The parent’s voice was not heard — it was repackaged as resistance

  • Cultural and linguistic identity were disregarded in favour of bureaucratic comfort

  • Both Westminster and RBKC engaged in coordinated procedural retaliation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the complaint doesn’t escalate the situation — it reveals that the situation was escalation all along. This letter marks the institutional failure to act ethically once accountability entered the room.

SWANK archived this to:

  • Prove that complaint and police reporting were treated as threats by safeguarding staff

  • Cement the evidentiary link between voice, retaliation, and false escalation

  • Ensure that the official record reflects who turned support into punishment

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Failure to adjust (verbal contact demands)
    • Section 27: Victimisation following police report
    • Section 149: Disregard of public sector equality duty

  • Children Act 1989 – CIN withdrawal and PLO escalation caused institutional emotional harm

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Family life
    • Article 14: Discrimination

  • Social Work England Standards – Misuse of power, bias, dishonesty in professional conduct

  • UNCRPD & UNCRC – Cultural erasure, accessibility breaches, protection failures

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a safeguarding system in operation. It was a reputation management strategy masquerading as concern. Once held accountable, the system didn’t self-correct — it retaliated.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • Full regulatory review of CIN and PLO escalation procedures

  • Public correction of the false “non-engagement” narrative

  • External oversight of both boroughs’ safeguarding teams from 2023–2025

⟡ 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.