“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 (Asthma as Condition; Misconduct as Negligence; Safeguarding as Retaliation)


ADDENDUM: ON THE ASTHMA OF MOTHER AND CHILDREN

A Mirror Court Indictment of Medical Misrepresentation, Safeguarding Ignorance, and Negligence as Retaliation

Metadata

I. What Happened

All five members of my family — mother and four children — have eosinophilic asthma, a severe and chronic condition. Instead of recognition and support, this shared diagnosis was repeatedly minimised, distorted, or dismissed. What should have prompted urgent medical accommodations was instead weaponised as suspicion.

II. What the Addendum Establishes

  • Shared Medical Continuity – Genetic and medical consistency confirms this condition is not incidental or behavioural.

  • Risk Profile – Eosinophilic asthma carries acute, life-threatening risks, resistant to ordinary inhalers.

  • Environmental Impact – Stress, disruption of routines, and exposure to hazards (such as sewer gas) exacerbate vulnerability.

  • Safeguarding Duty – Working Together to Safeguard Children requires practitioners to integrate health into safeguarding. Westminster ignored this entirely.

  • Safeguarding Ignorance – Instead of recognising medical crises, professionals mislabelled asthma as intoxication or non-engagement.

III. Consequences

  • Misdiagnosis delayed treatment, leaving lasting respiratory and vocal cord damage.

  • Children’s routines and health protections were disrupted by contact restrictions and hostile interventions.

  • Each safeguarding intrusion compounded risk by destabilising medication schedules, rest, and stability.

  • A condition shared across five lives was turned into a pretext for persecution.

IV. Legal and Doctrinal Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – failure to provide disability accommodations.

  • Article 2, ECHR – right to life endangered.

  • Article 8, ECHR – family life undermined by discrimination.

  • Article 3, UNCRC – best interests of the child subordinated to suspicion.

  • Article 24, UNCRC – right to health denied.

  • Working Together to Safeguard Children – statutory safeguarding duty disregarded.

V. SWANK’s Position

The Mirror Court records that eosinophilic asthma is a medical fact, not a behavioural defect.

Westminster’s refusal to accommodate this condition constitutes negligence of the highest order: a dereliction that endangered not only a mother but four children, all with the same diagnosis.

Closing Declaration

The Mirror Court declares:
Asthma is not suspicion.
Asthma is not neglect.
Asthma is not instability.
Asthma is a condition — and Westminster’s refusal to accept this truth is recorded as systemic malpractice.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person

⚖️ 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.