“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 (ICO Proceedings) On the Bureaucratic Perjury of Withholding Data and Weaponising Disability


Data Non-Disclosure, Misuse of Medical Records, and the Retaliatory EPO of 23 June 2025

Metadata

  • Filed: 18 August 2025

  • Reference: SWANK Addendum – ICO Complaint / Data Retaliation

  • Filename: 2025-08-18_SWANK_Addendum_ICOComplaint_AuditEPO.pdf

  • Summary: Formal ICO complaint showing Westminster’s refusal to disclose safeguarding records, misuse of sensitive disability data, and retaliatory removal of four U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

  • 6 June 2025: Audit Demand served on Westminster seeking disclosure of safeguarding removals and unlawful practices.

  • 7 June 2025: Instead of disclosure, Westminster issued a procedural threat.

  • 16 June 2025: Follow-up filed; silence persisted.

  • 23 June 2025: An Emergency Protection Order was executed, removing four U.S. citizen children under disproven allegations, while data remained deliberately withheld.

This was not safeguarding — it was data concealment dressed up as child protection.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster engaged in willful non-disclosure in breach of UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

  • That sensitive disability and medical data were repurposed as weapons to justify a safeguarding intervention.

  • That transparency was abandoned: internal records, emails, and case notes behind the EPO remain hidden.

  • That the wrongful removal of children was not an isolated tragedy but the direct product of a data crime.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the ICO must not be permitted to treat safeguarding files as exempt from scrutiny.
Because the fusion of data secrecy + retaliatory removal represents the worst excesses of bureaucratic power.
Because when institutions misuse the disability records of children to shield themselves, the matter ceases to be parochial — it becomes a precedent for tyranny.

IV. Violations

  • UK GDPR & Data Protection Act 2018 – failure to disclose, misuse of sensitive data.

  • Article 6 ECHR – right to a fair hearing, obstructed by data concealment.

  • Article 8 ECHR – interference with family life without lawful, transparent justification.

  • Equality Act 2010 – discriminatory misuse of disability data.

  • UNCRC & UNCRPD – violation of children’s and disabled persons’ international rights.

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster did not simply hide its files; it converted hidden files into false triggers for an EPO.
The ICO complaint makes plain that this was data abuse with children as collateral.

SWANK does not regard this as clerical negligence.
It is institutional perjury by database.

Closing Declaration

The ICO now holds the choice Westminster fled from:
whether safeguarding law may operate as an unchecked veil for data misuse — or whether disclosure will finally pierce the borough’s cultivated fog.

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd


⚖️ 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.