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 Tri-Borough (PC-113): On the Safeguarding of Power


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – TRI-BOROUGH LSCP ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/TRI-BOROUGH/LSCP-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-113_TriBoroughLSCP_SafeguardingMisuseDisabilityDiscrimination.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Tri-Borough Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) — covering Westminster, RBKC, and Hammersmith & Fulham — regarding the systemic misuse of safeguarding powers, procedural retaliation, and disregard for disability accommodations. This marks the first multi-agency submission in SWANK’s Safeguarding Misuse & Retaliation Sequence, establishing jurisdictional misconduct as a shared municipal habit rather than isolated error.

I. What Happened

On 18 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) filed a written complaint to the Tri-Borough LSCP, naming both Westminster Children’s Services and RBKC Children’s Services as complicit in sustained safeguarding misuse.

The complaint alleged:
• Repeated retaliatory escalation of Child in Need (CIN) and Public Law Outline (PLO) procedures following protected complaints.
• Failure to apply medically confirmed written-only communication adjustments in direct contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
• Disregard of clinical diagnoses including eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and panic disorder.
• Misrepresentation of home-educated children’s wellbeing, despite documented academic success and positive social worker reports.
• Absence of lawful threshold for continued safeguarding intrusion.

The submission concluded that safeguarding frameworks had been weaponised — that “protection” had become the institutional language of persecution.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That safeguarding procedures were repeatedly mobilised as retaliatory mechanisms rather than welfare measures.
• That disability discrimination has become embedded in the tri-borough safeguarding culture.
• That the failure of multi-agency communication constitutes not accident but method.
• That medical documentation, once ignored, transforms safeguarding into assault by appointment.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the first instance of multi-agency accountability escalation under the SWANK Evidentiary Charter.
• To demonstrate the structural continuity of safeguarding misuse across borough lines.
• To establish a public record that retaliation is not protection, and intrusion is not care.
• Because when three councils form one silence, the archive must speak instead.

IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework

Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 — ss. 15, 19, 20, and 27 (discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate).
• Children Act 1989 — ss. 17 and 47 (misuse of welfare and safeguarding powers).
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Arts. 6, 8, and 14 (fair process, family life, and equality).

Oversight Authorities Referenced:
• Tri-Borough LSCP (multi-agency review request)
• Social Work England (professional accountability)
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (maladministration jurisdiction)
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (systemic discrimination inquiry)

V. SWANK’s Position

“When safeguarding forgets who it serves, it becomes surveillance.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that the Tri-Borough safeguarding partnership has collapsed into ritualised dysfunction — a theatre of concern masking procedural aggression.
The complaint therefore operates as both petition and post-mortem, dissecting the anatomy of a safeguarding system that harms under the banner of help.

It is not merely a document; it is a mirror placed in front of a multi-agency machine that forgot its reflection.

⟡ 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 harm deserves record.

⚖️ 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.