A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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. RBKC & Westminster [PC-101]


⟡ Addendum: The Anatomy of Retaliation — On the Medical Endangerment of the Disabled Parent ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-101
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-101_HighCourt_MedicalEndangermentSocialWorkRetaliationAddendum.pdf
Summary: High Court addendum evidencing the deliberate use of safeguarding processes to endanger a disabled claimant during medical crises between 2022 and 2024.

I. What Happened

From 2022 to 2024, the claimant endured coordinated safeguarding interventions during periods of illness so severe that professional guidance advised the postponement of all procedural activity. Instead, Children’s Services within RBKC and Westminster pursued escalation precisely at moments of medical instability, converting each symptom into pretext and every breath into bureaucracy.

Chronology of institutional interference:
• Nov 2022: Initial Child-Protection escalation following clear medical and psychological assessments.
• Jun 2023: Second assessment again found no safeguarding grounds.
• 3 Jan 2024: Respiratory collapse after police contact and misfiled referral.
• 27–29 Feb 2024: GP advised against meeting; claimant COVID-positive; still pressured to attend.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Causal link between complaint activity and procedural retaliation.
• Pattern of safeguarding misuse during documented illness.
• Breach of statutory duties under Equality Act 2010 (Sections 20 & 27).
• Violation of Articles 3 & 8 HRA 1998 through degrading treatment and interference with family life.
• Foundation for aggravated and exemplary damages under the ongoing N1 Claim and Judicial Review.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the evidentiary pattern of retaliation through medical endangerment.
• To record the systematic refusal to accommodate disability within safeguarding procedure.
• To establish precedent for recognising illness as a site of procedural abuse.
• To enshrine the maxim of the Mirror Court: “Crisis is not consent.”

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20 & 27 (Reasonable Adjustment; Victimisation)
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3 & 8 (Degrading Treatment; Family Life)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Improper handling of medical information
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Failure of professional judgement during health crisis

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “failure to engage.”
This is respiratory persecution disguised as procedure.

We do not accept the bureaucratic fetish of scheduling over safety.
We reject the institutional theatre of compassion without comprehension.
We document every administrative breath withheld in the name of “care.”

⟡ 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.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic

⚖️ 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.