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 (PC-123): On the Administrative Art of Dismissal


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – ERIC WEDGE-BULL & BRETT TROYAN (RBKC CHILDREN’S SERVICES) ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FORMAL-COMPLAINT/2025-EBT
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-123_RBKCChildrenServices_FormalComplaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan.pdf
Summary: A formal escalation to RBKC Children’s Services Complaints Team, alleging procedural retaliation, disability discrimination, and mismanagement by Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan. The letter demands proper escalation under the statutory Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006, rejecting the council’s premature closure and misrepresentation of the complaint as “resolved.”

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2025, following repeated violations of lawful communication adjustments and the mishandling of safeguarding-related correspondence, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted this formal continuation and escalation of her unresolved complaint against Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan.

The complaint identified the following statutory breaches:
• Procedural retaliation against a disabled parent lawfully home-educating four children.
• Failure to respect written-only communication adjustments required under medical certification.
• Inappropriate tone and discriminatory remarks during periods of confirmed health crisis.
• Improper interference by senior officer Brett Troyan to prematurely dismiss or minimise the complaint.

The complaint further objected to RBKC’s unauthorised closure of the matter under the false claim of a “positive working relationship,” despite ongoing distress and unresolved procedural breaches.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That RBKC breached the statutory complaint handling process, refusing escalation to Stage 2 investigation.
• That Eric Wedge-Bull’s communications exhibited disability-based discrimination and tone-based misconduct.
• That Brett Troyan’s intervention was not oversight but obstruction.
• That systemic discrimination and retaliation now constitute a verifiable pattern across multiple agencies.
• That lawful home education and medical accommodation continue to be reframed as risk rather than right.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To document procedural malpractice disguised as “resolution.”
• To preserve proof of statutory non-compliance in RBKC’s complaint process.
• To show that disability rights and parental rights were jointly eroded through bureaucratic contempt.
• Because a letter to an ombudsman is also an act of jurisdictional performance art.

IV. Legal Framework

Statutes Cited
• Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 – procedural escalation duties.
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 15, 19, 20 – discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 6, 8, and 14 – denial of fair process, interference with family life, and discrimination.
• Freedom of Information Act 2000 – access to complaint-handling data.

Oversight Bodies Notified
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• Social Work England (SWE)

V. SWANK’s Position

“Resolution without investigation is not closure — it is erasure.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies RBKC’s conduct as statutory fraud through omission: the wilful conflation of complaint closure with complaint management.
The document functions as both grievance and affidavit — a linguistic injunction ensuring that “positive working relationship” will never again be misused as euphemism for coercion.

Every procedural omission, once recorded, becomes governance’s mirror.

⟡ 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 dismissal deserves documentation.

⚖️ 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.