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 Westminster (PC-178): On the Bureaucratic Hobby of Humiliation


⟡ PLACEMENT HARM: SHAMING & EMOTIONAL ABUSE ⟡

Filed: 29 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLACEMENT-HARM-SHAMING
Download PDF: 2025-09-29_Core_PC-178_WestminsterCouncil_ShamingAbuse_PlacementHarm.pdf
Summary: A record of institutional humiliation — where Westminster’s placements teach shame, fear, and silence instead of dignity, safety, and voice.

I. What Happened

While under Local Authority care, the four children of the Applicant were subjected to repeated acts of emotional abuse within the foster placement.
These include: the banning of a medical alert bracelet, intimidation through fabricated “safety” stories, derogatory language learned from carers, and discriminatory remarks about nationality.
The pattern reflects a culture of control through shame — a form of social training wholly alien to lawful safeguarding.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Blocking a medical alert bracelet constitutes clinical negligence and disability discrimination.
• “Fear-based messaging” is not safety education but psychological conditioning.
• Normalising insults teaches emotional hierarchy, not resilience.
• Discriminatory and humiliating remarks qualify as identity-based abuse under the Equality Act 2010.
• Professional corroboration (via Bruce Murphy) confirms verbal abuse occurred.
• The placement environment therefore meets statutory and clinical definitions of emotional harm.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record that the State’s substitute parenting model is a pedagogical failure.
• To show that humiliation is not supervision.
• To preserve proof that silence has been enforced through fear of sibling separation.
• Because the record must outlive the excuses.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.31 — Emotional abuse threshold met.
• Children Act 2004, s.11 — Duty to secure lawful safeguarding.
• Equality Act 2010 — Protected characteristics: race, nationality, disability.
• Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards (2011) — Standards 4, 7, 9 violated.
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Emotional abuse definition met.
• Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR Articles 3 & 8 — Protection from degrading treatment; right to family life.
• Case Law: Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33; YC v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 967; K & T v Finland (2001) 36 EHRR 18.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “difficult behaviour in placement.”
This is emotional choreography for the convenience of the institution.

SWANK does not accept the replacement of affection with fear.
We reject Westminster’s attempt to re-brand degradation as care.
We record every humiliation, word-for-word, until compassion becomes policy.

⟡ 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 children deserve better adults.

⚖️ 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.