“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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: On the Repeated Misuse of a Hospital Referral to Justify Harassment


⟡ “I’m Concerned About Your Mental Health” — When the Social Worker Becomes the Stalker ⟡
On the institutional obsession with one incident, and the bureaucratic refusal to let it die

Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/MEDREFERRAL-20240209
📎 Download PDF – 2024-02-09_HarassmentByRBKC_SamiraIssa_UnlawfulMedicalReferral.pdf
Summary: Polly Chromatic responds to repeated social worker contact from RBKC regarding an incident already addressed and documented — accusing the council of harassment and professional misconduct.

I. What Happened

On 8 February 2024, social worker Samira Issa from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea contacted Polly Chromatic regarding a referral made by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

The basis?
A rehashing of the same 2 November 2023 incident at St Thomas’ Hospital — an event that had already been raised, clarified, filed, and archived.

Polly responded firmly the next day, stating that she was “tired of being harassed for the same thing over and over,” and that she was concerned for Issa’s mental health given the obsessive repetition.

She reminded Issa (again) that she cannot communicate by phone due to her documented asthma and vocal injury, and demanded no further contact — citing both disability and legal escalation.

This email followed a pattern:
An initial fabrication.
An endless referral loop.
A refusal to close the file — no matter how many times the matter is already closed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Unlawful repetition of safeguarding referrals without new basis

  • Retaliatory fixation on a disproven incident for the purpose of keeping a case open

  • Failure to acknowledge written disability accommodations

  • Use of recycled referrals to create the illusion of new concern

  • Harassment by professionals under the guise of outreach

  • Deliberate provocation designed to exhaust, confuse, or trigger legal error

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is the bureaucratic version of stalking:
When a woman says “stop contacting me” and the institution says,
“Just one more check-in. Just one more follow-up. Just one more fake concern.”

SWANK archives this because the harm is not just in the false referral —
it’s in the repetition, the refusal to disengage, the use of formal tone to mask obsessive interest.

You cannot say “we care” while refusing to stop sending emails about an event you’ve already used as the basis for legal interference.

You cannot call this safeguarding when it reads like harassment.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour disability-related communication adjustments

  • Article 8, ECHR – Invasion of family and private life without lawful justification

  • Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding for institutional retribution

  • GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 – Reprocessing of medical and personal data without legitimate grounds

  • Social Work England Code of Ethics – Harassment disguised as concern

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a referral. It was an institutional loop — designed to entrap.
We reject fake follow-ups on matters already disproven.
We reject outreach cloaked in legal risk.
We reject safeguarding frameworks that allow obsession to be dignified as oversight.

If a woman says stop — and the council sends another referral — it is no longer care. It is surveillance.

And we will document it as such, every time.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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.