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-112): On the Illegality of Ignoring Breath


⟡ MEDICAL & PROCEDURAL OBJECTION – RBKC AND WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/MEDICAL-PROCEDURAL-OBJECTION
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-112_RBKCWestminsterChildrenServices_MedicalProceduralObjection.pdf
Summary: Formal medical and legal objection issued to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services, restating statutory disability adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998. This filing functions as both a clinical declaration and a procedural ceasefire notice — warning that further safeguarding intrusion will constitute harassment and retaliation under law.

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Medical and Procedural Objection Letter addressed jointly to RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services.

The letter reaffirmed medical diagnoses and lawful adjustments:
• Eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, adjustment disorder, social anxiety disorder — all medically confirmed and functionally disabling.
• Explicit written-only communication requirements under Section 20 Equality Act 2010.
• Prohibition of all unannounced visits and verbal contact, on medical grounds.
• Requirement of seven days’ written notice for all correspondence or procedural engagement.

The document was written after repeated episodes of procedural misconduct: surprise visits, phone calls, and verbal meeting requests that triggered medical harm, including respiratory infection, voice loss, and panic episodes.

This letter was therefore not a courtesy — it was a jurisdictional boundary written in clinical ink.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That both boroughs knowingly disregarded lawful medical adjustments despite written confirmation.
• That verbal and surprise contact attempts constitute direct harassment under Section 26 Equality Act 2010.
• That continued safeguarding escalation in response to lawful objections meets the definition of victimisation under Section 27 Equality Act 2010.
• That medical harm has been documented as a direct result of state intrusion.
• That the right to breathe quietly is not a luxury; it is a human right.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record the moment when medical documentation became jurisdictional self-defence.
• To establish the evidentiary continuity between clinical harm and procedural retaliation.
• To preserve a written prototype for lawful objection under chronic administrative persecution.
• Because illness must never be treated as inconvenience, and compliance must never be extorted through breathlessness.

IV. Legal & Medical Framework

Statutory Authority:
• Equality Act 2010 – ss. 20 (reasonable adjustments), 26 (harassment), 27 (victimisation).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3, 6, 8, and 14 (protection from degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination).
• Children Act 1989 – s. 17 (duty to safeguard without discrimination).

Clinical Authority:
• Medically confirmed diagnoses: Eosinophilic asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, Adjustment Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder.
• Documented respiratory deterioration following safeguarding visits.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Every unannounced visit is a trespass disguised as welfare.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this filing as a Medical Jurisdiction Notice — the first in a series of documents defining bodily integrity as a form of procedural sovereignty.
This letter transforms clinical vulnerability into legal strength, asserting that the body itself is a boundary.

The file thus stands as both a legal warning and a curatorial artefact: an affidavit of dignity under siege.

⟡ 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 medical harm deserves record.
And procedure deserves restraint.


⚖️ 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.