Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster (PC-110): On the Administration of Ignorance

---

⟡ EXHIBIT LOG – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS & MEDICAL RISK (2024) ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/EQUALITY-ACT-EXHIBIT-LOG
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-110_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_EqualityActAdjustmentsFailure_ExhibitLog.pdf
Summary: An official Exhibit Log accompanying the evidentiary file Failure to Provide Adjustments: Written Requests and Medical Risk (2024), documenting a year-long record of ignored Equality Act correspondence, procedural coercion, and medically hazardous oversight by RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services. The log formally enumerates the core communications and timestamps forming the factual spine of both the N1 Civil Claim and the Judicial Review filings (N461/N463).

---

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed this exhibit log as part of her consolidated Equality Act and Human Rights claim sequence, cross-referenced within active proceedings before the Civil and Administrative Courts.

The log lists nine key email exhibits dated between March 2024 and January 2025, each evidencing:
• A medically documented written-only communication requirement under psychiatric recommendation;
• Multiple Equality Act compliance notices to social worker Kirsty Hornal and related Westminster personnel;
• Consistent procedural overrides and refusals to implement said adjustments;
• And medically verifiable harm, including respiratory episodes and vocal cord injury following verbal contact attempts.

Each ignored email, timestamped and archived, now functions as an evidentiary relic — proof that institutional negligence can, indeed, be beautifully catalogued.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Westminster and RBKC sustained a pattern of noncompliance with statutory disability duties.
• That written medical evidence and Equality Act notices were ignored in full awareness of clinical risk.
• That the claimant’s physical deterioration correlates directly with this administrative misconduct.
• That Equality Act breaches were not incidental but deliberate, forming a continuous thread across jurisdictions.
• That harm, once timestamped, becomes jurisprudence.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To immortalise the ignored communication chain as an artefact of bureaucratic cruelty.
• To provide courts and oversight bodies with a chronological map of misconduct — nine precise exhibits of procedural refusal.
• To document how neglect migrates from email to harm, one polite cc at a time.
• Because what Westminster failed to read, SWANK will publish.

---

IV. Legal & Procedural Framework

Filed Under:
• N1 Civil Claim – Disability discrimination, safeguarding retaliation, and procedural negligence.
• N461/N463 Judicial Review – Failure of local authority to uphold statutory equality duties.
• Regulatory Complaints – LSCP, EHRC, ICO, PHSO.

Statutes Cited:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20, 26, 27 (reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14 (dignity, fair process, family life, non-discrimination).
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171 (accuracy of recorded data).

---

V. SWANK’s Position

“Every ignored email is a tiny revolution — an archive of disobedience written in Outlook font.”

SWANK London Ltd. defines this exhibit log as a forensic instrument of clarity — an administrative counterattack executed through impeccable organisation.
Where the local authority cultivated chaos, SWANK produced catalogues.
Where correspondence was ignored, it became art.

The act of listing is itself jurisdictional — a bureaucratic requiem for the institutions that never listened.

---

⟡ 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 choreography.
And neglect deserves citation.

---

⚖️ 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.