In the Matter of Procedural Delirium and the Medicinal Use of Narrative Displacement

---

🪞In re: The Curious Pharmacology of the Kingdom of Westminster
Or, What Are They Prescribing Over There?

Filed: 7 August 2025
Reference: SWANK-DELIRIUM/SAFETY/UNLICENSEDOPINIONS
Filename: 2025-08-07_SWANK_WorkplaceMedication_WestminsterSocialWork.pdf
Summary: An informal inquiry into the unknown substances possibly fuelling institutional logic at Westminster Children’s Services.

---

I. What Happened

After months of observing the procedural hallucinations, baffling communications, and inverted safeguarding logic exhibited by Westminster employees, a simple — if legally unorthodox — question must now be asked:

What drugs are they on?

Because no sober person:

– Treats sunglasses as a safeguarding risk,
– Tells a 16-year-old that their mother threatened suicide via imaginary video,
– Forgets to schedule a hair strand test they themselves ordered,
– Or calls a mother “non-engaging” after 300 pages of emails, filings, and court submissions.

---

II. Possibilities Under Review

We are currently investigating whether Westminster Children’s Services may be using a unique clinical cocktail known as:

• Deflexatol: Helps professionals ignore documents right in front of them.

• Misconstruidone: Causes mild-to-severe narrative inversion.

• Projectionex: Enables workers to accuse others of precisely what they’re doing.

• Lithium-Lite: Like empathy, but placebo.

• Bureaucritaline: Elevates paperwork above actual child welfare.

Side effects may include:

– Wild accusations,
– Misuse of public power,
– Retaliatory safeguarding procedures,
– And a complete inability to read.

---

III. SWANK’s Position

While we are not currently calling for a clinical drugs test of Westminster Children’s Services, we would support it.

Because whatever’s happening in that office isn’t policy — it’s pharmacological performance art.

And until further notice, Polly Chromatic and her four U.S. citizen children would prefer to be governed by professionals not under the influence of:

– Power without evidence,
– Concern without clarity,
– Or safeguarding practices with psychoactive side effects.

---

⚖️ 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.