“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 Westminster: On the Failure to Identify Any Offence While Still Involving the Police


⟡ “I Have Advised She Not Speak to You” — When the Solicitor Says What the Safeguarding Team Won’t Acknowledge ⟡
On the weaponisation of vagueness, and the necessity of legal shielding from institutional gaslighting

Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/POLICE-SOLICITOR-20240417
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-17_Email_WCC_PoliceContactSolicitorIntervention.pdf
Summary: Solicitor Simon O'Meara formally intervenes to block police contact with Polly Chromatic after vague and repeated allegations from Westminster social workers.

I. What Happened

On 17 April 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote to solicitor Simon O’Meara after Westminster social worker Edward Kendall continued to reference a list of historical accusations without explaining the basis of his current intervention. In a visit the day prior, Kendall became visibly irritated when Polly requested time to review a document privately — a document that was not explained or contextualised, and delivered around her children.

Polly followed up, asking — yet again — for details of the alleged “erratic behaviour” that supposedly occurred at the hospital and triggered police involvement. None were given.

Simon O’Meara responded formally, notifying both Polly and the police that all contact must go through him. He clarified he had gone on record and advised Polly not to engage with the police directly. The reason? The obvious lack of procedural transparency and the potential for further harm.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Absence of lawful threshold: No evidence or specific incident offered to justify escalation

  • Manipulation of tone and setting: Social workers becoming visibly hostile when questioned in front of children

  • Use of emotional pressure and presence to push compliance without due process

  • Solicitor intervention necessary to shield mother from false contact with police

  • Persistent refusal by Westminster to respond to documented abuse history or explain current accusations

  • Pattern of institutional gaslighting — presenting vague lists of “concerns” while ignoring formal documentation of harm suffered by the family

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email exchange reveals the exact moment that legal protection became the only functional safeguard.
Because it is not lawful to invent psychiatric or behavioural labels without proof — and then use those invented traits to justify police involvement, surveillance visits, or child welfare interventions.

Because this is how it works:
They provoke, accuse, and escalate — then collapse into silence when asked for detail.
And when the mother holds her ground? They call in the police.

SWANK archives this as the procedural turning point: the moment it became clear that only a solicitor could stop the spiral.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair hearing

  • Article 8, ECHR – Right to respect for private and family life

  • Children Act 1989 – Misuse of social services intervention without legal basis

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Disproportionate state interference

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Reuse of historical material without lawful relevance or consent

  • Common law rights of legal representation – Violated when social workers attempt to bypass solicitor protections

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was fabrication through repetition.
There was no new behaviour. No evidence. No formal report.
Only old accusations, recycled and waved like justification.

SWANK rejects vague threat narratives as a substitute for lawful thresholds.
We reject police involvement based on nothing more than tone and discomfort.
And we reject a system that needs a solicitor to block harassment from the very agencies claiming to “support.”

If you have something to accuse, say it.
If you don’t — stop sending the police to scare the mother into silence.

⟡ 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.