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 LSCP (PC-106): On the Failure to Safeguard from Safeguarding


⟡ FORMAL SAFEGUARDING RETALIATION COMPLAINT – LSCP (RBKC & WESTMINSTER) ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/LSCP/RBKC-WCC/SAFEGUARDING-RETALIATION
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-106_LSCP_RBKCWestminster_SafeguardingRetaliationComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) for the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. The filing details a pattern of safeguarding misuse, disability discrimination, data falsification, and procedural retaliation by named social workers between January and April 2024. The complaint requests formal investigation under Working Together to Safeguard Children and identifies safeguarding itself as the vector of harm.

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted a Formal Complaint to the Tri-Borough LSCP, addressed to its Chair.
The document detailed repeated breaches of law and procedure by social workers acting under RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services, including:

  1. Safeguarding referrals used as retaliation following protected complaints to the NHS, Metropolitan Police, and regulatory bodies.

  2. Disability discrimination — refusal to honour written-only communication adjustments despite medical certification under Section 20, Equality Act 2010.

  3. Escalation from Child in Need (CIN) to Child Protection (CP) without lawful evidence or parental disclosure, in violation of Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998.

  4. Falsified referrals originating from Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, leading to unlawful escalation.

  5. Emotional and medical endangerment through coordinated visits and refusal to delay meetings during respiratory collapse, contrary to Article 3, HRA 1998.

Named officers included:

  • Samira Issa (RBKC)

  • Edward Kendall (Westminster)

  • Glen Peache (RBKC/Westminster)

Each name, a line item in the administrative choreography of harm.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That safeguarding procedures were exploited as instruments of retaliation, not protection.
• That medical vulnerability was met with coercion, not care.
• That tri-borough oversight mechanisms failed to intervene or correct unlawful escalation.
• That data falsification at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital initiated an entire cascade of procedural misconduct.
• That the safeguarding apparatus itself became the site of abuse — a self-consuming system of protection without ethics.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record the formal moment where safeguarding crossed into persecution.
• To establish the LSCP’s statutory responsibility for systemic oversight failures.
• To ensure the national safeguarding framework is confronted with its own procedural contradictions.
• Because oversight, when captured by the institution it supervises, becomes complicity — and must be archived.

IV. Legal & Oversight Framework

Statutes & Instruments Invoked
• Children Act 1989 – s.17 & s.47: misuse of welfare and protection powers.
• Equality Act 2010 – ss.15, 19, 20, 27: discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14: degrading treatment, fair process, private life, and non-discrimination.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171: accuracy and lawfulness of recorded data.
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2023) – statutory partnership duties for inter-agency accountability.

Regulatory Avenues
• Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (Tri-Borough)
• Social Work England
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman
• Equality & Human Rights Commission

V. SWANK’s Position

“When safeguarding becomes the weapon, protection becomes parody.”

SWANK London Ltd. defines this LSCP filing as the hinge-point of jurisdictional clarity: the precise document where the claimant stopped asking for protection and began demanding accountability.
The complaint redefines “safeguarding” as an administrative performance of harm — a ritual in which care is simulated, rights are suspended, and the disabled are blamed for their own exhaustion.

This letter is not an act of appeal.
It is an act of witness — a ledger of names, dates, and omissions too deliberate to be accidental.

⟡ 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 safeguarding deserves scrutiny.
And authority deserves supervision.

⚖️ 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.