⟡ “I Have Advised She Not Speak to You” — When the Solicitor Says What the Safeguarding Team Won’t Acknowledge ⟡
On the weaponisation of vagueness, and the necessity of legal shielding from institutional gaslighting
Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/POLICE-SOLICITOR-20240417
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-17_Email_WCC_PoliceContactSolicitorIntervention.pdf
Summary: Solicitor Simon O'Meara formally intervenes to block police contact with Polly Chromatic after vague and repeated allegations from Westminster social workers.
I. What Happened
On 17 April 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote to solicitor Simon O’Meara after Westminster social worker Edward Kendall continued to reference a list of historical accusations without explaining the basis of his current intervention. In a visit the day prior, Kendall became visibly irritated when Polly requested time to review a document privately — a document that was not explained or contextualised, and delivered around her children.
Polly followed up, asking — yet again — for details of the alleged “erratic behaviour” that supposedly occurred at the hospital and triggered police involvement. None were given.
Simon O’Meara responded formally, notifying both Polly and the police that all contact must go through him. He clarified he had gone on record and advised Polly not to engage with the police directly. The reason? The obvious lack of procedural transparency and the potential for further harm.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Absence of lawful threshold: No evidence or specific incident offered to justify escalation
Manipulation of tone and setting: Social workers becoming visibly hostile when questioned in front of children
Use of emotional pressure and presence to push compliance without due process
Solicitor intervention necessary to shield mother from false contact with police
Persistent refusal by Westminster to respond to documented abuse history or explain current accusations
Pattern of institutional gaslighting — presenting vague lists of “concerns” while ignoring formal documentation of harm suffered by the family
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this email exchange reveals the exact moment that legal protection became the only functional safeguard.
Because it is not lawful to invent psychiatric or behavioural labels without proof — and then use those invented traits to justify police involvement, surveillance visits, or child welfare interventions.
Because this is how it works:
They provoke, accuse, and escalate — then collapse into silence when asked for detail.
And when the mother holds her ground? They call in the police.
SWANK archives this as the procedural turning point: the moment it became clear that only a solicitor could stop the spiral.
IV. Violations
Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair hearing
Article 8, ECHR – Right to respect for private and family life
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of social services intervention without legal basis
Human Rights Act 1998 – Disproportionate state interference
Data Protection Act 2018 – Reuse of historical material without lawful relevance or consent
Common law rights of legal representation – Violated when social workers attempt to bypass solicitor protections
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was fabrication through repetition.
There was no new behaviour. No evidence. No formal report.
Only old accusations, recycled and waved like justification.
SWANK rejects vague threat narratives as a substitute for lawful thresholds.
We reject police involvement based on nothing more than tone and discomfort.
And we reject a system that needs a solicitor to block harassment from the very agencies claiming to “support.”
If you have something to accuse, say it.
If you don’t — stop sending the police to scare the mother into silence.
⟡ 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.
⟡ 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.