“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 County Court at Central London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label County Court at Central London. Show all posts

The Lord Mayor & Citizens of Westminster v. Polly Chromatic — An Injunction to Silence Evidence, A Gossip to Replace It


⟡ Addendum: On Westminster’s Injunction Theatre and Gossip Economy ⟡

Filed: 11 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INJ-SMEAR
Filename: 2025-09-11_Addendum_FathersMessage_WestminsterSmear.pdf
Summary: While Westminster petitions the Court to restrain my written evidence, its operatives resort to gossip — seeding lies about “men” and “babies” into parental communication.

I. What Happened

On 21 August 2025, Westminster issued an application for an injunction under the name “The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster.” Their request: that I be muzzled, permitted only one email per week, forbidden to contact named officers, and ordered to pay their costs.

Concurrently, on 10 September 2025, the father of my children relayed an erratic message repeating Westminster’s latest gossip: that I “have everyone with me” and ought to “have a new baby.” These words are not his invention but the handiwork of Ms. Kirsty Hornal, whose safeguarding toolkit has degenerated into character assassination.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • Contradiction: Westminster simultaneously fears my emails (too much evidence) and fuels gossip (no evidence at all).

  • Collapse of Professionalism: The Council dresses itself in the robes of “The Lord Mayor & Citizens,” but speaks in the register of playground tattle.

  • Pattern: Procedural silencing in court, reputational smears outside of it — both targeted to destabilise me.

  • Mother’s Position: I corrected the lies immediately, preserved the record, and reported the matter to police (Ref: ROC-18570-25-0101-IR).

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This entry sits at the intersection of Westminster’s two reflexes: containment (via injunctions) and projection (via gossip). It belongs in the Archive as proof that when institutions cannot withstand scrutiny, they resort to costumes and rumours.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

  • Article 8 ECHR – Family life undermined by malicious communications.

  • Children Act 1989, s.1(3) – Welfare subordinated to Westminster’s reputation.

  • Professional Standards of Social Work – Breach of ethics by engaging in smear campaigns.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. This is theatre.

We do not accept Westminster’s pose as The Lord Mayor & Citizens.
We reject their effort to enjoin evidence while circulating gossip.
We will document their descent into farce until the archive itself becomes their reflection.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every injunction is theatre. Every smear is evidence. Every document is preserved.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive.


⚖️ 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: