⟡ Polite Stonewalling in a Polka Dot Template: RBKC Responds to Educational Sovereignty with Email Vaguebooking ⟡
Or, How the Borough Took 37 Days to Say “We Don’t Know What’s Going On” — While Pretending It’s a Process
Filed: 13 February 2024
Reference Code: RBKC-SCHOOL-VACUUM-RESPONSE-2024
Court File Name: 2024-02-13_Chromatic_v_RBKC_Email_Samira.pdf
Summary: Samira from RBKC’s School Admissions Team replies to Polly Chromatic’s lawful correspondence about her children’s educational status with a delicately crafted non-answer. It is a masterpiece of passive bureaucratic unawareness — and one SWANK is delighted to immortalise.
I. What Happened
After submitting lawful home education documentation for all four children, and following repeated misclassification by social services, Polly Chromatic received an email on 13 February 2024 from Samira, representing RBKC’s school placement team.
Samira’s response:
Acknowledges Polly's communication and submission of the Borough’s own paperwork.
Confirms that Heir and Kingdom were not on the roll of any RBKC school.
Admits that the team is unaware of the current status of Regal and Prerogative, stating they are “not on our system”.
Deflects the inquiry to a “Children Missing Education” referral — which had already occurred.
Does not clarify whether any formal safeguarding, school attendance, or placement intervention has been recorded.
Passes the matter to an unnamed CME officer “who may be in touch shortly” — the bureaucratic equivalent of a shrug in Times New Roman.
II. What the Email Establishes
That RBKC could not track its own records on children it had previously tried to forcibly re-enroll.
That despite all four children being subject to multi-agency intrusion, no single system at the Borough had updated or coordinated its data.
That Samira’s reply functioned as a soft denial of responsibility — neither confirming action nor providing procedural clarity.
That Polly Chromatic’s proactive documentation and lawful action was met not with professionalism, but with institutional confusion.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a mother files everything correctly, submits documentation on time, and educates her children with distinction — the Borough still responds as if she’s a mystery to be decoded.
Because this isn’t safeguarding — it’s infrastructural laziness coated in email etiquette.
Because RBKC wants to act like the children are “missing” — but can’t be bothered to read the files showing they were found, enrolled, and thriving in a sovereign education model.
Because Polly Chromatic is not a subject of inquiry. She is an archivist of incompetence.
IV. Violations
Children Missing Education Statutory Guidance (2016) – Failure to track and coordinate information
Section 7, Education Act 1996 – Undermined by passive non-recognition of valid home education
Public Administration Standards – Lack of internal record accuracy, failure to respond substantively
Parental Rights and Procedural Fairness – Failure to acknowledge lawful education provision on file
V. SWANK’s Position
RBKC does not need more referrals.
It needs a database.
And a team that can read what’s already been submitted.
This email is a perfect case study in how administrative systems collapse under their own false concern — suggesting absence where there is abundance, danger where there is documentation.
Polly Chromatic is not awaiting validation from a “CME officer.”
She is archiving your delay for a tribunal that will not require an index, because every mistake is already filed by date, tone, and shade of denial.
⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.
⟡ 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.