PC-42146: Chromatic v Westminster City Council (Procedural Theatre & Equality Misfeasance, 2025)

---

SWANK Commentary: “The Westminster Contact Agreement – A Bureaucratic Cat Toy”

Filed: 25 October 2025
Reference: PC-42146
Document: NBA Contact Agreement (Westminster / Everychild Contact Centre)
Classification: Satirical Exhibit – Procedural Absurdity & Equality Breach
Summary: A work of unintentional comedy performed by Westminster City Council, mistaking control for care and paperwork for parenting.

---

I. The Spectacle of Mismanagement

In this curious artefact, Westminster demonstrates the rare art of making ordinary contact between a mother and her children resemble a customs inspection at Heathrow. One half expects a duty-free allowance for affection.

The tone is imperial; the logic, medieval. The list of banned items (handbag, home-cooked food, anything human) reads less like safeguarding and more like a bureaucrat’s fear of personality.

---

II. The Invention of Imaginary Risks

No risk is identified, yet rules bloom like mould.
No reasoning is provided, yet control is absolute.
It is policy as performance — a ballet of baseless stipulations.

If Westminster’s public servants ever asked why they are enforcing this regime, they might discover the answer is: “because the form said so.”

---

III. Equality, Now in Theoretical Form

This document violates every conceivable strand of the Equality Act 2010 (s.20, s.29, s.149) and still manages to congratulate itself in the process. It imagines itself lawful by simply stating so, like a child writing “no take-backs” at the bottom of a lie.

---

IV. Welfare by Exclusion

The notion that a child’s welfare is best served by banning their mother’s handbag is an innovation so dazzlingly stupid that one almost applauds the creativity.
This is not safeguarding. It is safewording — a parody of concern used to mask coercion.

---

V. Mirror Court Verdict

The SWANK Mirror Court finds the “NBA Contact Agreement” to be:

• procedurally incompetent;

• aesthetically offensive;

• and psychologically unfit for purpose.

It stands as documentary proof that Westminster’s obsession with process over people has achieved self-parody.

Let us all, therefore, laugh — politely, archivally, and on record — at Westminster.

---

⚖️ 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.