Chromatic v. The Disappearing Threshold – When They Closed the Case Instead of Apologising

---

🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

“Assessment Outcome: No Action Taken. Because There Was No Risk.”

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-E45-MORGAN-NFA-CLOSURE
Court File Name: 2022-11-09_SWANK_Addendum_SophieMorgan_AssessmentOutcome_NoFurtherAction
Summary: After repeated allegations, procedural coercion, and ignored medical disclosures, Islington formally concedes that no safeguarding action is warranted. Polly Chromatic is exonerated without apology.

---

I. What Happened

On 9 November 2022, after months of manufactured concern and repeated non-consensual escalation, Islington social worker Sophie Morgan sent a formal email to Polly Chromatic (then Noelle Bonneannée), stating:

“Islington Children’s Services will not be taking any further action at the current time.”

This followed:

• Multiple anonymous allegations (none substantiated);

• Repeated refusal to provide documentation until demanded in writing;

• Attempts to escalate safeguarding involvement based on gossip, suspicion, and secondhand reports;

• Clear disability disclosure and scheduling barriers due to asthma and housing instability;

• Confirmation from both schools that the children were stable, enrolled, and thriving.

No evidence of harm was ever presented.
No independent child interviews were conducted.
No medical review was undertaken.
The assessment lapsed — and that was their final act.

---

II. What the Email Confirms

• That no findings of harm or actionable concern were established;

• That despite all the invasive effort, no lawful threshold was ever met;

• That the entire assessment proceeded without accommodation, transparency, or medical context;

• That Islington attempted to end the process quietly, without accountability, repair, or correction of the false narrative they generated.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This email is not closure.
This email is proof of escalation without cause.
And it is evidence that even after abandoning the safeguarding narrative, Sophie Morgan still refused to acknowledge that:

• Her actions were discriminatory,

• Her conduct was coercive,

• Her oversight body (Islington) had failed at every step of lawful engagement.

The family was left to move, alone, unsupported, harassed — and then told: “no further action.”

---

IV. Violations Confirmed by Closure

• Section 47 Children Act 1989 – No evidence ever established threshold for inquiry;

• Equality Act 2010 – No written disability accommodations were provided;

• Article 8 ECHR – The family’s privacy was intruded upon repeatedly with no lawful basis;

• Social Work England Standards – No apology, redress, or recognition of procedural error;

• Data Protection Act 2018 – Unlawful retention and use of defamatory hearsay in internal records likely persists.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

To close a fabricated case quietly is not integrity — it is institutional evasion.
Islington’s position was never about safeguarding; it was about optics, fear, and the belief that a mother with asthma, four children, and a tight calendar would not fight back.

They were wrong.

Polly Chromatic did fight back.
She wrote it all down.
And now, it’s archived — not as resolution, but as evidence.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.