“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 (PHSO Proceedings) On the Parliamentary Failure to Restrain Bureaucratic Abuse


Maladministration Masquerading as Safeguarding: Westminster’s Retaliatory EPO

Metadata

  • Filed: 18 August 2025

  • Reference: SWANK Addendum – PHSO Complaint / Maladministration

  • Filename: 2025-08-18_SWANK_Addendum_PHSOComplaint_AuditEPO.pdf

  • Summary: Complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman exposing Westminster’s maladministration, abuse of safeguarding powers, and retaliation against a lawful audit demand.

I. What Happened

  • 6 June 2025: Audit Demand submitted to Westminster seeking disclosure of unlawful removals.

  • 7 June 2025: Westminster’s reply was not disclosure but a procedural threat.

  • 16 June 2025: A formal Audit Follow-Up was filed. Silence followed.

  • 23 June 2025: An Emergency Protection Order executed, removing four U.S. citizen children under disproven allegations, while medical evidence was ignored.

This is not administration. This is maladministration in its purest form: using safeguarding law to retaliate against lawful scrutiny.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster’s use of an EPO was a retaliatory weapon, not a protective act.

  • That procedural fairness was discarded in favour of bureaucratic self-preservation.

  • That internal complaint channels were neutralised by the very act of retaliation.

  • That systemic maladministration has produced irreparable harm to four children with asthma-related needs.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when safeguarding law is rewritten as an institutional gag order, the Ombudsman must decide whether it serves Parliament or protects its own inertia.
Because maladministration is not clerical accident but an ethos at Westminster.
Because four children now embody the price of procedural contempt.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – misuse of safeguarding powers in bad faith.

  • Article 6 & 8 ECHR – denial of fair process and unlawful interference with family life.

  • Equality Act 2010 – disability-based discrimination masked as welfare action.

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

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster is guilty not only of maladministration but of administrative sadism: converting audit accountability into retaliatory removal.

The Ombudsman now faces a choice:

  • Intervene, or

  • Confirm that maladministration is Westminster’s official operating system.

SWANK will not let silence reign. We file, therefore we resist.

Closing Declaration

This case is not a local authority hiccup. It is a referendum on whether safeguarding powers can be inverted into weapons of retaliation without Parliamentary consequence.

✒️ 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.