“Mark Garland Approved My Homeschooling. Apparently, That Wasn’t Enough.”
⟡ A Letter to Legal Counsel Documenting Institutional Whiplash, Fabricated Truancy, and the Fictional Policy That Keeps Changing
IN THE MATTER OF: Unlawful safeguarding, approval denial after approval given, and the myth of a homeschooling policy no one can produce
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 6 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HOMESCHOOL-FABRICATEDTRUANCY
Court File Name: 2020-08-06_Records_MarkGarlandHomeschoolApprovalDispute
Summary: Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) documents three years of procedural harassment after following exactly the steps laid out by Deputy Director Mark Garland — who approved her homeschooling plan in 2017. Despite repeated submissions of her curriculum and qualifications, she is accused of truancy, subjected to safeguarding abuse, and told by the Complaints Commission that her entire history of compliance is now irrelevant because she “didn’t follow what Edgar Howell said” — someone she has never spoken with and who has never written her.
I. What Happened
In 2017, Polly met in person with Mark Garland and was told to submit her curriculum — which she did. He approved her homeschooling.
Over the next three years, she was:
Yelled at by a truancy officer (Mr. Kennedy) in public
Subjected to sexualised hospital exams of her sons in front of 9 adults
Trespassed upon during COVID lockdown
Threatened repeatedly with child removal
She submitted her BA and MA degrees, social enrichment details, curriculum, and learning methods — annually
In 2020, the Complaints Commission insisted none of that mattered and cited “new” requirements from Edgar Howell, with whom Polly had never communicated
She was told her approval was void, despite having met every previous standard
When she attempted to complain about safeguarding misconduct, the Complaints Commission reignited the truancy threat instead
II. What the Email Confirms
That Mark Garland's approval was known, documented, and acted upon
That social services acknowledged her homeschooling status
That institutional memory is nonexistent: her three years of compliance were discarded
That policy is cited, but never shown
That fabricated truancy threats are being used to reassert power rather than protect children
That the Complaints Commission functions not as a neutral party, but as an arm of administrative coercion
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because there is nothing more dangerous than a policy that no one can produce. Because “you spoke to the wrong person” is not a legal argument. Because approval should not expire just because a different official decides to contradict it. Because sexualised exams and emergency fence removals are not a form of educational oversight. Because this letter documents the precise moment compliance became litigation.
IV. Violations
Abuse of safeguarding protocols
Statutory breach under Children Ordinance for failure to provide reports
Illegal entry and COVID-19 violations
Denial of education rights despite formal approval
Defamation and harassment by public officials
Procedural retaliation through complaints mismanagement
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this document as a primary exhibit in the institutional obliteration of lawful homeschoolers. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That truancy cannot be claimed when prior approval exists
That Mark Garland’s authority cannot be retroactively erased because someone else says so
That policy must be written, distributed, and consistent — or it does not exist
That this is not child protection — this is performative, punitive fiction
That any system that demands compliance while refusing to define the rules is not lawful — it is dangerous