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

PC-200058: On the Ethics of Supervision and the Aesthetics of Refusal


⟡ Video Contact and Withdrawal of Consent re EveryChild ⟡

Filed: 25 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PC-200058
Download PDF: 2025-10-25_Core_PC-200058_Westminster_VideoContactWithdrawalOfConsentEveryChild.pdf
Summary: Notice of lawful withdrawal of consent from EveryChild Contact Centre following police involvement and procedural breach; request for alternate video contact venue under statutory equality and safeguarding law.

I. What Happened

On 25 October 2025, Polly Chromatic issued formal notice to Westminster City Council confirming withdrawal of consent for EveryChild Contact Centre to host, supervise, or facilitate any future contact.

This decision followed the police incident of 24 October, which rendered the venue neither neutral nor lawful.
The correspondence demanded video contact arrangements for 28 October 2025, supervised directly by Westminster, and required confirmation of dial-in details and named supervisors by noon on 27 October.

In short: what Westminster calls “contact management,” SWANK recognises as institutional trespass with bureaucratic décor.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That consent for EveryChild’s involvement was lawfully withdrawn under duress and public-safety grounds.
• That Westminster remains bound by Children Act 1989 s.34 to promote contact, regardless of administrative embarrassment.
• That the Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21 & 27) protects written communication and forbids retaliatory limitation of parental access.
• That procedural misconduct does not dissolve statutory obligation.
• That “EveryChild” has become the most ironic brand in contemporary safeguarding.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the right to family contact should not hinge upon the emotional stability of a subcontractor.
Because no mother should require police evidence to justify breathing space.
Because when a venue becomes an instrument of coercion, the withdrawal of consent is not defiance — it is jurisdictional hygiene.

SWANK logged this correspondence as an act of refusal elevated to record — a study in administrative disentanglement, conducted in accordance with law and contempt alike.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989 – s.34: Duty to promote contact
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Art.8: Right to family life
• Equality Act 2010 – ss.20–21 (reasonable adjustments), s.27 (protected acts)
• Public Law Principles – Prohibition on coercion, procedural fairness, and proportionality
• Safeguarding Standards – Requirement of neutrality, non-retaliation, and medical accommodation

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “a preference for another venue.”
This is the lawful retraction of consent from an unsafe institution masquerading as care.

SWANK rejects the illusion that subcontracted supervision absolves the Council of liability.
We reject the moral contortion that equates compliance with safeguarding.
We will continue to document every inch of bureaucratic theatre in which public servants confuse control with welfare — and record it, gorgeously, for the archive.

⟡ Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every consent withdrawn. Every incident retained. Every performance remembered.
Because evidence deserves elegance — and withdrawal deserves ceremony.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection. 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 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, alongside 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 International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards, registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All formatting, typographic, 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.