A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 ECHR Article 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECHR Article 3. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster (PC-163): On the Bureaucratic Theology of Disbelief


⟡ ADDENDUM: MEDICAL NEGLECT & DISCRIMINATORY DISBELIEF ⟡

Filed: 25 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/MEDICAL-NEGLECT
Download PDF: 2025-09-25_Core_PC-163_WestminsterCouncil_MedicalNeglect_DiscriminatoryDisbelief.pdf
Summary: From fabricated-illness allegations against the mother to the neglect of her children’s asthma, eczema, and dental surgery — Westminster’s disbelief culture has evolved into an organised system of medical neglect, refuted by both Bromley Family Law and Amos Human Rights Law.

I. What Happened

The Local Authority’s refusal to believe illness has become policy.
It began with an accusation that the mother “fabricated” her eosinophilic asthma — despite clinical confirmation. That disbelief now governs the children’s medical care:

• Repeated respiratory infections ignored.
• Asthma appointments at Hammersmith cancelled.
• Daily peak-flow monitoring abandoned.
• Inhaler prescriptions uncollected.
• Eczema on Kingdom’s knuckles untreated.
• Urgent dental surgery for Molar-Incisor Hypomineralisation forgotten.

The pattern is not accidental. It is institutional doctrine: disbelief as governance.

II. What the Document Establishes

• A continuity of disbelief — accusations first applied to the mother, now transferred to the children.
• Neglect spanning respiratory, dermatological, and dental systems.
• Breach of every clinical and statutory safeguard.
• Discrimination against disability disguised as procedural scepticism.
• Evidence that neglect has been rebranded as “care.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To archive proof that disbelief has material consequences: sickness, regression, pain.
• To demonstrate that “safeguarding” has been corrupted into systemic medical neglect.
• To preserve Bromley and Amos as the legal mirror through which disbelief reveals abuse.
• Because silence in medicine is not neutrality — it is complicity with harm.

IV. Authorities & Violations

Domestic Law
• Children Act 1989, s.22(3)(a) — duty to promote health ignored.
• Children Act 2004, s.11 — safeguarding duty breached.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.13 & 149 — disability discrimination; PSED violation.

Human-Rights Law
• ECHR Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 — degrading treatment, denial of remedy, family-life interference, discrimination.
• UNCRC Articles 3, 19, 24, 39 — best interests, health, recovery, and protection rights violated.
• CRPD Articles 5, 7, 23, 25 — failure to accommodate disability.
• Istanbul Convention (2011) — repeated harm unaddressed.

Academic Authorities
• Bromley Family Law — condemns fabricated-illness misuse as safeguarding distortion.
• Amos Human Rights Law — state disbelief in illness constitutes rights violation under Articles 3 & 8 ECHR.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “oversight.”
This is clinical dereliction by decree.

SWANK asserts that Westminster has engineered medical neglect through disbelief.
To accuse the disabled of fabrication is to fabricate neglect.
The children’s worsening health is the symptom of an institutional pathology — disbelief as culture, cruelty as compliance.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And disbelief deserves indictment.

⚖️ 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:

On the Vulgarities of Delegated Civility and the National Discomfort of the Foster State

⟡ SWANK ENTRY — METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT: PLACEMENT INCIDENT ⟡

Filed: 07 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CRIMINAL-BIAS
Download PDF: 2025-10-07_SWANK_Report_RomeoFosterBiasIncident.pdf
Summary: Formal Metropolitan Police report (Ref: TAA-50103-25-0101-IR) documenting discriminatory and verbally abusive conduct by Westminster-approved foster carers toward Regal (aged 16), supported by the Council’s internal incident admission.

I. What Happened

On 7 September 2025, during a morning interaction at a Westminster-commissioned foster placement in Ilford (715A High Road, Seven Kings, IG3 8RH), the male foster carer shouted “I’ve f**ing had enough*” within earshot of all four children, following a disagreement with Regal (aged 16, dual U.S.–U.K. citizen) about leaving the house early to ride his bicycle.

The incident occurred in front of his siblings (Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir), prompting visible distress.
A Metropolitan Police online report was filed by Polly Chromatic (mother) on 6 October 2025 at 19:51, citing harassment, verbal abuse, and discriminatory behaviour based on nationality.

The police report identifies:
• Victim: Regal (16, Mixed White–Black Caribbean heritage, severe eosinophilic asthma)
• Reporter: Polly Chromatic, mother and Director of SWANK London Ltd.
• Incident Location: 715A High Rd, Seven Kings, Ilford IG3 8RH
• Offence Type: Verbal assault and discriminatory conduct under delegated state care
• Bias Factors: National origin and ethnicity

The foster carer’s own admission of misconduct is confirmed in an internal Westminster email from Bruce Murphy (Social Worker, WCC) dated 9 September 2025, co-signed to Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, describing Del’s outburst as “not acceptable.”

II. What the Document Establishes

• The Metropolitan Police Service formally recorded a criminal complaint concerning verbal abuse and bias within a Westminster-commissioned placement.
• Westminster City Council internally corroborated the event — confirming the carer’s conduct, tone, and apology — yet continued the placement.
• The foster carers had previously made derogatory comments, including that Regal “doesn’t know how to ride a bike because he’s American”, revealing a sustained national-origin prejudice.
• The Local Authority’s framing of the event as a “disagreement” rather than discriminatory misconduct demonstrates systemic minimisation of racial and national bias within its placements.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the pattern of foster-care hostility toward U.S.–born children is neither accidental nor harmless — it is cultural cruelty legitimised by paperwork.
Because a system that normalises verbal abuse, excuses bias, and recasts it as “boundary setting” is unfit to protect any child.
Because Regal’s dignity was once again subordinated to institutional convenience.

SWANK logs this as a mirror instance of custodial incivility — a child’s humiliation transformed into administrative prose.

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.22(3): Failure to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child in care.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 3 & 14: Degrading treatment and discriminatory bias by state agents.
• ECHR, Art. 8: Interference with family and private life under hostile placement conditions.
• Equality Act 2010, s.26: Harassment related to nationality and race.
• UNCRC, Art. 19 & 29: Failure to protect from psychological harm and to ensure respect for cultural identity.

V. SWANK’s Position

This event encapsulates the unrefined temperament of state care: bureaucratic contrition masking emotional violence.
The council’s own admission that the carer’s outburst was “not acceptable” yet its choice to retain the placement confirms Westminster’s institutional tolerance for misconduct.
SWANK London Ltd. deems this incident a documented act of national-origin harassment under delegated custody, warranting immediate placement suspension, formal investigation, and public accountability for supervisory negligence.

Filed under the Jurisdiction of the Mirror Court — SWANK London Ltd.
A Velvet Tribunal for the Evaluation of Civilised Decay.
🪞 We file what others forget.

⚖️ 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:

On the Indecency of Delegated Care and the Failure of State Custodians


⟡ SWANK ENTRY — HEIR POLICE REPORT ⟡

Filed: 06 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CRIMINAL-ABUSE
Download PDF: 2025-10-06_SWANK_Report_HeirBurnIncident.pdf
Summary: Formal police report documenting a physical injury (curling iron burn) sustained by eight-year-old Heir while in foster care under Westminster supervision.

I. What Happened

On 5 October 2025, during a supervised contact at Green Mayes Contact Centre (Ilford), Heir — aged eight, American citizen, and child of the Applicant — disclosed that someone deliberately burned her hand with a curling iron.
The injury was visibly open, untreated, and consistent with a thermal burn.
Her mother, Polly Chromatic, photographed the wound and immediately filed an online Metropolitan Police Report(Ref: TAA-50108-25-0101-IR) at 20:01 on 6 October 2025.

The report identifies:
• Victim: Heir (8, female, Mixed White–Black Caribbean heritage, severe eosinophilic asthma)
• Reporter: Polly Chromatic, mother, Director of SWANK London Ltd.
• Incident Location: 79 Duke Road, Ilford IG6 1NL
• Nature of Offence: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (thermal burn)
• Perpetrator: Unknown (suspected foster carer or household member)

II. What the Document Establishes

• A recorded physical injury inflicted upon a disabled child under Local Authority care.
• Formal acknowledgment by the Metropolitan Police Service that the injury was severe enough to warrant a criminal report.
• Evidence of medical neglect — untreated wound visible at time of contact.
• Confirmation of racial and national-origin hostility cited as contributing factors.
• Corroboration that the incident took place while the child was under Westminster’s delegated safeguarding duty.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Westminster Children’s Services continue to frame their safeguarding interventions as protective, when in reality their placements have produced physical harm, untreated injury, and the visible distress of a U.S. citizen child.
Because Heir’s pain was met with procedural silence.
Because institutional custody without accountability is not protection — it is custody with injury.

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.22(3) – failure to safeguard and promote welfare while in care.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 3 – inhuman or degrading treatment.
• ECHR, Art. 8 – violation of family life through unsafe foster placement.
• UNCRC, Art. 19 – failure to protect child from all forms of physical violence.
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 6 & 20 – neglect of disability-related welfare needs (asthma).

V. SWANK’s Position

This incident is not an isolated act of carelessness but part of a pattern of neglect masked as oversight.
The Local Authority’s continued control over medical access, supervision, and reporting constitutes a structural abuse of safeguarding powers.
SWANK London Ltd. considers the burn on Heir’s hand to be prima facie evidence of criminal negligence under delegated care, warranting immediate suspension of the current placement, police investigation, and a full welfare reassessment.

Filed under the jurisdiction of the Mirror Court — SWANK London Ltd.
A House of Velvet Contempt and Evidentiary Precision.
🪞 We file what others forget.

⚖️ 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: