“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

R (Chromatic) v Westminster: On the Bureaucratic Theatre of Compliance and the Legal Fiction of ‘Likely’ Contact


🪞SWANK ENTRY
“Day Four, Still Nothing”
On the Bureaucratic Mockery of Judicial Orders and the Administrative Erosion of Family Rights

⟡ Filed Date:

15 July 2025

⟡ Reference Code:

SWANK/CONTACT/ORDERBREACH-DAY4

⟡ Court Filename:

2025-07-15_SWANK_Addendum_ContactOrderBreach_DayFour.pdf

⟡ One-Line Summary:

Four days after the court ordered in-person contact, Westminster has still not complied.

I. What Happened

On 11 July 2025, the Family Court ordered three in-person contact sessions per week between Polly Chromatic and her four children.

It is now 15 July 2025 — Day Four since the order — and no in-person contact has taken place.

Despite repeated emails requesting a confirmed schedule, the only written response from Kirsty Hornal on 15 July at 12:59 p.m. offered the phrase:

“It is likely that the contact will be tomorrow and Thursday… I am still in negotiation with providers.”

This is not compliance.
This is not confirmation.
This is the bureaucratic theatre of noncompliance.

II. What This Confirms

  • No contact occurred Friday (11 July) when the order was made

  • No visit was scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, or Monday

  • No written confirmation has been provided for Tuesday (today)

  • The “likely” language defers responsibility without fulfilling obligation

  • There is no legal justification for this four-day delay

This marks a full week of post-hearing inaction, during which zero court-mandated visits have been honoured.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this delay is not administrative.
It is tactical, emotional, and in contempt of court authority.

We logged it because no parent should be told that their children are “likely” to appear — as if access to family is a surprise, not a constitutional entitlement.

We logged it because Polly Chromatic has followed every legal avenue with precision — and Westminster has responded with passive noncompliance.

This is not a system under strain.
This is a system stalling under scrutiny.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Breach of Court Order – Non-compliance with 11 July ruling

  • Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life without legal cause

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to facilitate contact per child welfare mandate

  • Procedural Delay as Obstruction – “Negotiation” used to delay mandated action

  • International Interference – Ongoing denial of contact with four U.S. citizens

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s response to a formal contact order has not been compliance — it has been a performance of possibility.
We do not litigate on “likely.”
We do not reunite families with “in negotiation.”

A court order is not an administrative suggestion.
It is a legal obligation.

We therefore file this on Day Four of noncompliance, and we will file Day Five tomorrow if contact still has not occurred.

Let the record show:

  • No in-person contact occurred.

  • No schedule has been confirmed.

  • And Westminster is now operating in open breach of judicial direction.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
Downloaded via 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.