“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

In the Matter of a Mother Who Taught Without Permission


🪞The Classroom That Westminster Couldn’t Control

In the Matter of Elective Education and Institutional Suspicion

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 15 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A13-EHE-DISCRIMINATION
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_Addendum_ElectiveHomeEducation_SchoolDiscrimination.pdf
Summary: A formal statement of position detailing school-driven hostility toward lawful home education, and the local authority’s unlawful attempts to reframe elective instruction as neglect.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic, lawful parent and lifelong educator, chose Elective Home Education (EHE) under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Not in crisis. Not in reaction. But by design.

What followed?
A systemic campaign of suspicion. Schools resisted withdrawal. Teachers interrogated children about whether they “really” wanted to learn at home. Local authorities logged concern forms not because education failed — but because they didn’t author it.

Despite providing documentation, curriculum outlines, and consistent parental oversight, Polly was met with disbelief, condescension, and eventually outright harassment. Her lawful withdrawal was recast as abandonment. Her commitment to learning was portrayed as concealment. And her refusal to subject her children to illness-inducing environments was called obstruction.

At no point did any school or local authority invoke s.437 of the Education Act to formally challenge the suitability of education. They relied instead on narrative distortion and professional bias.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Elective Home Education was carried out lawfully, consistently, and in full compliance with statutory requirements.

  2. Schools and local authorities ignored policy guidance, making ideological assumptions about home education and unlawfully escalating without evidence.

  3. The mother's refusal to re-expose her children to harmful physical environments (e.g., following a sewer gas incident) was framed as non-cooperation rather than medically and educationally protective.

  4. Professional actors displayed discriminatory bias against lawful educational choice, violating duty-of-care and neutrality obligations.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Elective Home Education is not a red flag. It is a right.
Because disagreement with mainstream pedagogy does not constitute neglect.
Because safeguarding powers cannot be used to punish those who refuse to conform.
And because a parent who chooses to educate does not consent to surveillance, suspicion, or semantic sabotage.

IV. Violations

  • Education Act 1996, s.7 – Duty to ensure suitable education (fulfilled)

  • Education Act 1996, s.437 – Mechanism for challenge (not used)

  • Children Act 1989, s.22 & s.47 – Misuse of concerns to justify intervention

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination based on disability-related parental advocacy

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

V. SWANK’s Position

The withdrawal from school was not evasive — it was deliberate, documented, and constitutionally protected.
The attempt to recode Elective Home Education as concealment or danger is not a misunderstanding — it is an ideological attack on parental freedom.

We reject the premise that the state must authorise learning.
We reject the soft criminalisation of home educators.
And we demand formal recognition that choosing not to enroll is not a safeguarding failure — it is a civil right.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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.