⟡ Confirmation of Video Contact: Friday 4 July, 3:00 PM – Conditions Reasserted ⟡
Chromatic v. The Calendar of Pretend Neutrality [2025] SWANK 34 — “I confirmed attendance. Not complicity.”
Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CONTACT-CONDITIONS-CONSENT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_ZC25C50281_Confirmation_Friday_3PM_Video_Contact.pdf
Contact confirmation filed with explicit refusal of verbal engagement with named professionals due to psychiatric harm.
I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025 at 22:25, Polly Chromatic confirmed her attendance for a video contact session scheduled for Friday 4 July at 3:00 PM, in relation to Case XXXXXXXX. The message, sent to Westminster Children’s Services, affirmed her presence without waiving legal rights or boundaries. The correspondence included a precise reiteration:
Contact is accepted for the children’s wellbeing
Verbal interaction with Samuel Brown, Kirsty Hornal, or associated professionals is medically contraindicatedand remains formally objected to
A calm, safe, and procedurally neutral contact environment must be ensured
This was not acquiescence. It was conditional participation. Logged and archived.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Attendance is being offered under clinical constraint, not procedural compliance
Contact sessions are scheduled reactively, not strategically or supportively
Professionals causing documented psychiatric harm continue to hover as gatekeepers
Requests for non-verbal engagement remain unacknowledged in substance, if not tone
The parent must affirm her own dignity in every calendar reply — because the institution will not
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because contact isn’t a favour to the parent — it’s a legal structure owed to the child.
Because confirming a meeting doesn’t equal consenting to the architecture behind it.
Because disability is not a negotiation tactic. It is a threshold.
Because professionals cannot claim neutrality while refusing to vacate roles they know are harmful.
And because every meeting entered under protest is logged in full. With footnotes.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, §20 – Ongoing refusal to implement necessary adjustments
HRA 1998, Art. 8 – Contact delivered under psychological coercion
Children Act 1989, §34 – Contact must promote welfare, not replicate trauma
Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010 – Inadequate trauma-informed design
NICE Guidelines (NG26) – Non-compliance with recommendations for PTSD-related professional contact boundaries
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t compliance. It was clinical constraint, consented to under duress.
We do not accept meetings scheduled with triggers built in.
We do not accept institutional presence dressed up as professionalism.
We do not accept contact where the parent must defend her own medical report every week.
Polly Chromatic will attend — but the archive will attend louder.
⟡ 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.