SWANK LONDON LTD – EVIDENTIARY CATALOGUE ENTRY
Filed: 8 August 2025
Ref: WCC/CP-EVAL/2025-08-08
Filename: 2025-08-08_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_ConnectedPersonsEvaluation.pdf
Summary: Formal condemnation of Westminster’s connected persons evaluation process as procedurally compromised, biased, and ethically bankrupt.
Chromatic v. Westminster City Council – On the Lawful Irrelevance of Biased Connected Persons Evaluations
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic submitted a formal written notice to Westminster Children’s Services condemning the ongoing connected persons evaluation. The notice identifies the central flaw: the evaluators themselves — having a record of procedural breaches, safeguarding misuse, and demonstrable unfitness — are permitted to dictate life-altering decisions for children.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The process is structurally unsound, undermined from inception by unqualified and biased decision-makers.
There is no lawful threshold analysis or best interests determination guiding the outcome.
Arbitrary gatekeeping supplants lawful evaluation, exposing children to continued harm.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because permitting the professionally unfit to determine the fates of children is not simply incompetent — it is procedurally void and morally grotesque. This is not “assessment”; it is administrative cosplay with real-world casualties.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Failure to apply lawful threshold and best interests criteria.
Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life absent lawful justification.
Public Law Principles – Bias, procedural impropriety, and irrationality.
V. SWANK’s Position
The connected persons evaluation, as conducted by Westminster, is neither credible nor lawful. Its outcome is pre-tainted by the demonstrable misconduct and bias of its architects. SWANK London Ltd. asserts that this process should be disregarded in its entirety and replaced with an evaluation conducted by neutral, qualified professionals under judicial oversight.
Final Paragraph – SWANK’s Legal-Aesthetic Authority
It is not merely improper to let those with a history of safeguarding malpractice dictate the placement of children — it is an act of institutional self-parody. Westminster may dress bias in the robes of procedure, but SWANK will ensure the court, the press, and the public see it for what it is: a farce too dangerous to be left standing.
⚖️ 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.