“If You’re Going to Force a Genital Exam, At Least Learn My Name”
⟡ A Formal Rebuttal to a Safeguarding Timeline So Vague, It Forgot What Year It Was
IN THE MATTER OF: Fabricated neglect, unlawful medical assault, mistaken addresses, and a mother who logged it all with better records than the state
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 24 October 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-REBUTTAL-MEDICALASSAULT-2020
Court File Name: 2020-10-24_Court_Letter_Rebuttal_SafeguardingFabrications_MedicalAssault
Summary: In this detailed rebuttal to a safeguarding report filed with the TCI courts, Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée) documents the unlawful forced medical examination of her children in 2017, the institutional memory lapses that followed, and the egregious factual errors in the court's own report — including using the wrong name, wrong address, and wrong phone number. What emerges is a tragicomic record of state negligence dressed up as safeguarding, and a mother doing the work of five departments in self-defence.
I. What Happened
On 23 May 2017, police and social workers forcibly appeared at Polly’s home and demanded she and her children go to the hospital.
At the hospital, Polly’s sons were subjected to non-consensual genital exams, with nine adults seated in a semi-circle like an audience. Her daughter was not examined.
No prior consent was sought. No privacy was offered. No lawful justification was given.
In the court documents filed three years later, this event was vaguely referenced, misdated, and blamed on Polly for “relocating” — despite her consistent presence and unchanged phone number.
Polly’s rebuttal letter:
Lists the exact date, location, and parties involved
Disputes the invented “neglect” and “invisibility” claims
Asserts the trauma this caused her family
Notes that the state's own documents contradict each other
Requests the psychological evaluation results that were never shared
II. What the Letter Establishes
That the safeguarding visit in 2017 involved forced medical procedures without consent
That court records filed in 2020 contain provable errors, including wrong dates and incorrect phone numbers
That Polly was not hiding or “unreachable,” as falsely claimed
That DSD’s narrative is a self-contradictory collection of bureaucratic guesses
That the court received a report riddled with omissions, deflections, and fictional chronology
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because medical assault is not “protocol.” Because writing “we couldn’t locate the family” doesn’t erase the fact that you had her phone number and email all along. Because it is not the mother’s job to remind government departments what year it is, what island she lives on, or how trauma works. Because this letter is a testimony to truth told in full paragraphs, while institutions sputter out inaccuracies under court seal.
IV. Violations
Non-consensual genital examination of minors
Misrepresentation of safeguarding history
Procedural breaches in forced state medical intervention
Administrative falsification (wrong names, numbers, and claims of absence)
Retaliatory and unlawful safeguarding escalation
Withholding of psychological records and institutional gaslighting
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this letter as Exhibit J in the archive of state-administered amnesia and trauma-by-form letter. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That safeguarding cannot be weaponised to justify assault
That vague reports with contradictory timelines are not evidence — they are cover stories
That no parent should have to correct the record of an incident she didn’t consent to
That medical violations require accountability, not erasure
That this rebuttal is a cornerstone document in the catalogue of procedural abuse and legal gaslighting
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.