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-104]


⟡ Addendum: On the Elegance of Collapse — The Retaliation of Care in Westminster and RBKC ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-104
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-104_HighCourt_SocialWorkRetaliationMedicalEndangermentAddendum.pdf
Summary: A judicial addendum evidencing medical endangerment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory safeguarding escalation between 2022–2024.

I. What Happened

Between 2022 and 2024, social workers acting under RBKC and Westminster invoked safeguarding processes during periods of confirmed illness and respiratory collapse.
Each escalation coincided precisely with formal complaint activity, including submissions to the JCIO, EHRC, and IOPC.
Despite explicit medical warnings from the claimant’s GP — including instruction on 27 February 2024 not to convene a meeting during acute illness — the authorities persisted, causing physical collapse, psychological trauma, and procedural humiliation.

The chronology is now fixed in archive:
• Nov 2022: CP escalation post-clear assessments
• Jun 2023: Second assessment found no grounds
• 3 Jan 2024: Respiratory crisis following misfiled safeguarding
• 27–29 Feb 2024: Meetings forced during illness, in defiance of medical advice

II. What the Document Establishes

• Causal link between complaint activity and safeguarding escalation
• Repeated refusal to accommodate disability under the Equality Act 2010 (Sections 20, 27)
• Breach of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998
• Evidence of psychological harm to both claimant and children
• Formal foundation for damages under N1 civil claim and Judicial Review

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Demonstrates the weaponisation of welfare under medical duress
• Forms the connective tissue between the LSCP complaint and later High Court filings
• Preserves the chronology of retaliatory collapse for international oversight and future citation
• Establishes the archival principle that “crisis is never consent”

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20 and 27 (Reasonable Adjustment; Victimisation)
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6 and 8 (Degrading Treatment; Fair Process; Family Life)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Misuse of medical information
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Ethical malpractice through disregard of health evidence

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “non-engagement.”
This is respiratory retaliation masquerading as procedure.

We do not accept the medical erasure of a disabled parent.
We reject the re-branding of illness as defiance.
We document every refusal to postpone compassion.

⟡ 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.