“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Issa: On the Safeguarding of Speculation and the Vagueness of Procedural Power


🧾 THE OBJECTION ON RECORD

On the Formal Rebuttal to Samira Issa’s Report and the Practice of Safeguarding via Vagueness

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 29 February 2024
Reference Code: SWANK/SAMIRA/0229-CP
PDF Filename: 2024.29.02 Samira 0.63527.pdf
Summary: A formal response to the Initial CP Conference report authored by Samira Issa, correcting institutional falsehoods and demanding clarity on vague allegations of “dysregulation” and “abuse.”

I. What Happened

On 29 February 2024, Polly Chromatic submitted a direct and detailed response to the Initial Child Protection Conference SOS Mapping Report authored by Samira Issa, Westminster social worker.

The report, which floated racially-coded assumptions, vague behavioural allegations, and narratives unsupported by evidence, was met with line-by-line rebuttal.

The mother clarified:

  • The children are emotionally secure and academically stable

  • Past cross-borough checks showed no safeguarding concerns

  • The 2 January 2024 hospital incident was handled lawfully, with no police objections

  • The 3 February 2024 attendance was managed to protect the child from trauma

  • Medical letters disproved the false intoxication claim

  • Terms like “dysregulation” and “racial abuse” were used without detail, evidence, or procedural clarity

It is a correction — and a confrontation.

II. What the Response Establishes

This is not a parent’s plea.
This is a forensic dismantling of safeguarding theatre.

It establishes that:

  • Westminster was running on assumption, not evidence

  • Racial and behavioural coding were used strategically and evasively

  • No concern was registered by police, medical, or hotel staff during the incidents cited

  • The social worker invoked suspicion instead of specifics

  • Medical harm was ignored in favour of speculative policing of parental decisions

The report did not assess the children.
It assessed the narrative power of institutional authority — and failed.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding should never be a vocabulary game.

Because no professional should use the term “dysregulated” without citing what happened, to whom, when, and how.

Because racial abuse is too serious a claim to be deployed without consequence — or detail.

Because this report reveals how safeguarding has been distorted into theatre: vague, racialised, procedural, and prosecutorial — but never accountable.

This rebuttal enters the archive to mark the moment where a mother refused to be rewritten.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6 ECHR – Lack of specificity violates the right to a fair and clear process

  • Article 14 ECHR – Racial discrimination via vague, culturally coded accusations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Procedural bias based on race, disability, and speech

  • Children Act 1989 – Procedural dishonesty in welfare assessments

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Improper handling of unsubstantiated or defamatory data

V. SWANK’s Position

This report is not a safeguarding document.
It is an annotated suspicion script, marked by legal vagueness, racial overtones, and deflection of procedural accountability.

Polly Chromatic replied.
Politely.
Specifically.
With law and fact.

Her response is now logged, published, and referenced.
The report, however, remains unsourced, unanchored, and now — unsupported.

⚖️ 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.

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.