⟡ “You Could Have Asked the Caretaker — But You Chose Escalation Instead” ⟡
An invitation to verify wellbeing through ordinary means, declined in favour of statutory force.
Filed: 28 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-28_SWANK_Email_Westminster_PLOCaretakerVerificationRequest.pdf
Email from Polly Chromatic to Westminster Children’s Services suggesting that the building caretaker — Krystyna — could confirm family wellbeing. Ignored in favour of continued statutory hostility.
I. What Happened
On 28 April 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, offering a simple and obvious alternative to invasive PLO escalation: ask the building caretaker.
The message explained that:
The caretaker sees the family daily
She has observed nothing of concern
The social workers could verify this at any time
Written communication and respectful boundaries were being maintained
No hostility or secrecy existed — only lawful medical boundaries
It was a calm, cooperative offer. It was met with silence.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Westminster had peaceful, low-impact, third-party options to verify wellbeing
The parent proactively offered access to local non-family witnesses
Escalation via PLO was not necessity — it was choice
The “safeguarding risk” narrative is undermined by parent-led transparency
The refusal to accept this offer demonstrates procedural bias, not protection
III. Why SWANK Filed It
This email reveals a profound truth: Westminster never wanted verification — they wanted submission. When a parent invites outside confirmation and the authority declines, the goal is no longer child protection. It’s coercion.
SWANK archived this document to:
Prove that alternative verification routes were offered and refused
Undermine Westminster’s claim that formal intervention was necessary
Preserve written evidence of institutional inflexibility and bad faith
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Failure to exercise least intrusive measures
Equality Act 2010 – Escalation in retaliation for disability-related adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)
Social Work England Standards – Failure to explore non-statutory options
Working Together 2018 – Ignoring available local sources of safeguarding support
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t escalate to PLO when a neighbour is available. You don’t invoke safeguarding while ignoring the very people who can confirm the children are thriving. You only do that when your real goal is institutional dominance — not child protection.
SWANK London Ltd. demands:
A full review of why third-party verification was dismissed in this case
A written apology for misrepresenting the family as uncooperative
A procedural mandate that external non-statutory verification must be considered before formal escalation
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.