“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

In the Matter of RBKC’s Closure Determination (2023) and Westminster’s Contradictory EPO Application (2025)


⟡ ADDENDUM: CONTRADICTIONS IN SAFEGUARDING NARRATIVES ⟡

Filed: 23 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CONTRADICTIONS
Download PDF: 2025-09-23_Addendum_Contradictions_RBKCClosure_WestminsterEPO.pdf
Summary: RBKC closed shouting/cannabis/hygiene in 2023; Westminster recycled same themes in 2025.

I. What Happened

  • July 2023 (RBKC): Police referral investigated (shouting, cannabis, hygiene). RBKC social workers Jessica Miller & Eric Wedge-Bull visited homes, spoke with children, and concluded no safeguarding threshold was met. Case closed to Family & Children’s Services.

  • June 2025 (Westminster): Westminster applied for an Emergency Protection Order citing the same themes RBKC had already dismissed. No new evidence was introduced.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • RBKC formally closed the case in 2023 with no safeguarding threshold.

  • Westminster recycled disproven allegations in 2025 to obtain an EPO.

  • Clear contradiction between two local authority determinations.

  • Evidence of procedural abuse and retaliatory escalation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

  • Legal relevance: Grounds for strike-out/variation of EPO.

  • Educational precedent: Demonstrates safeguarding inconsistency between boroughs.

  • Historical preservation: Pattern of recycled allegations documented.

  • Pattern recognition: Echoes identical safeguarding misuse logged in Turks & Caicos (2016–2020).

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.47 & s.44 — thresholds misapplied, disproven themes recycled.

  • Equality Act 2010, s.20 — disability adjustments ignored (asthma, dysphonia).

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 ECHR — interference with family life disproportionate. (cf. Amos, Human Rights Law, proportionality test).

  • Bromley, Family Law (12th ed., p.640) — misuse of safeguarding powers without consent or necessity.

  • Public Law Principles — consistency, proportionality, non-retaliation breached.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. This is juridical parody.

  • We do not accept Westminster’s recycling of disproven allegations.

  • We reject the EPO’s reliance on themes RBKC had closed.

  • We will document this contradiction as evidence of institutional harassment in all parallel claims and international forums.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

⚖️ 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.