“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

Showing posts with label Child Voice Evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child Voice Evidence. Show all posts

In Re: The Upstairs Pencil Ban – Power, Surveillance, and Procedural Absurdity


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Velvet Register of Procedural Misuse and Dignity Theft

No Pencils Upstairs

In Re: Restriction as Routine – Regal’s Observations on Foster Control

📁 Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-ROMEOCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_Journal_FosterControlSummary.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A child’s handwritten inventory of institutional restriction, deprivation, and power misuse in foster care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — a segment titled “Foster Talk” — was authored by Regal, age 16, in the quiet of restriction.

It details a list of controlling and, in some cases, developmentally harmful prohibitions placed on him and his siblings, including:

  • Telling Kingdom (age 10) that he can’t eat because he’s 10

  • Not allowing them to bring their water bottles upstairs

  • Not allowing them to bring pencils upstairs

  • Being told to “be respectful” to siblings without cause

  • Ambiguous bathroom restrictions (“above the upstairs bathroom rule”)

Each line is quietly devastating — a record of being watched, silenced, denied, and patronised.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

These aren't just odd household quirks. They are institutional symptoms:

  • Nutritional Humiliation: Withholding food based on age isn't child development — it's mockery in procedural form.

  • Hydration Restriction: Dangerous for children with asthma, particularly those with eosinophilic asthma (as all four siblings are diagnosed).

  • Stationery Suppression: Banning pencils upstairs violates educational dignity and emotional expression.

  • Passive Discipline Language: “Being respectful to siblings” — weaponised ambiguity used to pre-frame children as disobedient.

  • Toilet Surveillance Culture: The bathroom reference, vague but repeated across multiple journal entries, signals privacy erosion and bodily control.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because this entry was never intended for legal scrutiny — which makes it all the more damning.

It is unfiltered, unprompted, and uncoached.

This is how Regal has begun to interpret “care”: a regime of “don’ts,” of power without explanation, of needs ignored, rights denied, and voice erased.

In a system where journaling is banned and pencils are contraband, the very existence of this page is resistance.

We logged it because someone must.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22C – Inappropriate and developmentally unsafe placement

  • ECHR Articles 3, 8, 14 – Degrading treatment, interference with private life, discrimination on the basis of disability and nationality

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 17, 31 – Failure to respect child voice, education, and recreation rights

  • Health & Safety Standards – Failure to meet basic hydration and asthma-management responsibilities

  • Equality Act 2010 – s.20–21 – Indirect discrimination through provision of services

V. SWANK’S POSITION

You cannot teach “respect” by denying dignity.
You cannot foster trust while rationing water and pencils.
You cannot call this child protection.

This document is hereby archived under the Regal Journal Evidentiary Series and will be submitted to the Family Court, CAFCASS, and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Disability and Arbitrary Detention.

Every line is evidence.
Every stroke of Regal’s pen is a legal act of survival.

Filed in legal reverence and procedural revolt,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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:

In Re: The Notebook of No Contact – A Minor’s Evidence Against a Major Violation


🪞SWANK London Ltd.

THE NOTEBOOK OF NO CONTACT

A Supplementary Prosecution Entry in Re: A child's Journal and the Criminality of Containment

Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-LOI-KH-JOURNAL-0825
Filename: 2025-08-01_CriminalSupplement_KirstyHornal_JournalEvidence.pdf
1-Line Summary: A child's handwritten journal is submitted as primary child voice evidence in the private criminal prosecution of Kirsty Hornal.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

Polly Chromatic has now submitted a Supplementary Evidentiary Filing to Westminster Magistrates’ Court in the ongoing private criminal prosecution of Ms. Kirsty Hornal, social worker, Westminster Children’s Services.

The new filing includes:

  • Photographed pages from a child’s handwritten journal, documenting distress, asthma deterioration, and the emotional impact of arbitrary restrictions.

  • Legal arguments situating the journal as primary evidence of psychological harm, excessive control, and retaliatory containment under Kirsty Hornal’s supervision.

The child is a 16-year-old U.S. citizen.
He is not a suspect. He is not on trial.
He is simply trying to breathe — and write.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The complaint against Ms. Hornal is no longer rooted in procedural misconduct alone. It now includes:

  • Psychological abuse by authority

  • Medical neglect through restriction of activity

  • Suppression of communication and expression

  • Unlawful interference with family life and autonomy

His journal is not poetic. It is precise.

He writes:
"I can’t ride bikes anymore because of one mistake."
That sentence alone indicts the safeguarding fiction.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because a child's asthma should not worsen in state care.
Because withholding pencils is not therapeutic.
Because mocking accents is not professional conduct.
Because emotional surveillance is not safeguarding.

And because the only thing more dangerous than a silent child is one who writes — and whose parent reads.

IV. CRIMES AND GROUNDS ESTABLISHED

Criminal Grounds under Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 & Children Act 1989:

  • Emotional cruelty under the guise of supervision

  • Negligent restriction of medical routines (asthma care)

  • Wilful interference with parental rights and contact

  • Abusive use of authority over a minor

  • Retaliatory containment of expression

Supporting Doctrines:

  • Article 8 ECHR – Family Life

  • Article 3 UNCRC – Best Interests of the Child

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability Discrimination

  • Safeguarding Breach – Abuse of Position and Oversight

This is no longer a complaint. It is a ledger of criminality — handwritten by the child who endured it.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

The journal pages have been submitted to:

  • Westminster Magistrates’ Court

  • The Family Court (ZC25C50281)

  • Social Work England

  • Relevant safeguarding and human rights monitors

The LOI now includes:
First-person, contemporaneous child testimony.

This is not a parental grievance.
This is a prosecution.

⚖️ 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: