“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 re Academic Harassment: Camden v Chromatic, Thesis Under Siege (No. 9)


⟡ On Academic Research Interrupted by Harassment ⟡

Filed: 1 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/CAMDEN/ACADEMIC-2015
Download PDF: 2025-09-01_Addendum_AcademicResearchInterrupted_Expanded.pdf
Summary: Camden social workers obstructed the completion of a Master’s thesis, establishing continuity of harassment across a decade.

I. Introduction

In 2015–2016, Camden social workers engaged in harassment that obstructed the Director’s Master’s thesis. Academic freedom and family welfare were compromised; the research was completed only at significant personal cost.

II. Thesis Subject and Context

  • Degree: Master of Arts in Human Development (Social Justice), Pacific Oaks College, Pasadena.

  • Thesis Focus: Discrimination against husband in the United States; deportation to Turks and Caicos.

  • Nature: Academic study and personal testimony on systemic injustice and family separation.

III. Interference by Social Services

  • Harassment by Camden social workers in 2015–2016.

  • Stress and destabilisation obstructed academic focus.

  • Thesis ultimately completed but under siege conditions.

  • Corroborated by transcripts, thesis submission logs, and degree conferral.

IV. Relevance to Present Proceedings

  • Establishes continuity of institutional sabotage since 2015.

  • Demonstrates that harassment of academic and professional development predates the present safeguarding case.

  • Academic record functions as both research and evidence of persecution.

V. Legal and Human Rights Basis

  • Children Act 1989 — Sections 1, 17, 22 breached.

  • Education Act 1996, s.7 — obstruction of lawful education.

  • Bromley, Family Law — harassment incompatible with genuine cooperation.

  • Human Rights Act 1998 — ss. 3, 6, 7 breached.

  • ECHR — Articles 8, 10, 14 violated.

  • CRC — Articles 3, 12, 23 disregarded.

  • Equality Act 2010 — unlawful discrimination.

  • UDHR — Articles 12 & 25 infringed.

  • UNESCO Recommendation (1997) — academic freedom obstructed.

  • Case Law:

    • ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD — child’s best interests paramount.

    • Re C — personality traits cannot be distorted into intervention.

    • Johansen v Norway — disproportionate interference condemned.

  • Public Law Principles — legality, rationality, proportionality, fairness discarded.

VI. Oversight and Escalation

If unresolved, this matter will be referred to:

  • Equality and Human Rights Commission

  • Ofsted

  • Social Work England

  • UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education

  • UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of the Child

VII. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding.
This is persecution of academic freedom.

SWANK does not accept harassment of research.
SWANK rejects institutional sabotage disguised as duty.
SWANK archives this as proof of continuity: persecution has a timeline, and it began long before 2025.

⟡ 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.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.

⚖️ 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.