🪞The Closed Case They Pretend Is Still Open
In the Matter of Harassment, Asthma, and the Weaponisation of Referrals
⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Filed Date: 15 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A15-ISLINGTONCLOSURE
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_Addendum_Islington_FalseReferrals_Closure.pdf
Summary: A formal rebuttal and evidentiary addendum documenting the closure of Islington Children’s Services’ 2022 case, the disproven referrals, and the institutional erasure of this outcome by subsequent authorities.
I. What Happened
Between April and November 2022, Islington Children’s Services received a sequence of anonymous and implausible referrals — all alleging that Polly Chromatic was neglecting her children or acting inappropriately. These included melodramatic claims of unsupervised park outings, profanity, drug use, and children crying (as if all crying were proof of abuse rather than asthma, stress, or poverty).
But after months of observation, correspondence, and unflinching parental candour, the case was closed.
On 9 November 2022, social worker Sophie Morgan wrote:
“Islington Children’s Services will not be taking any further action at the current time.”
And yet — the same allegations were recycled by Westminster and RBKC in later years, stripped of their closure context and used to support escalation in unrelated proceedings.
This addendum makes one thing indelibly clear:
You may not recycle what was already refuted.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Every allegation made in 2022 was assessed and either dismissed outright or not substantiated through evidence.
Polly was experiencing severe eosinophilic asthma, harassment from a neighbour (police-reported), and single-handedly parenting four children.
Her engagement was thoughtful, reasoned, and documented — including transparency with schools.
Islington confirmed no action was necessary — a finding now conveniently forgotten in future referrals.
The local authority’s selective memory and narrative inflation reflect a pattern of institutional escalation detached from law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because closure is not a suggestion — it is a legal conclusion.
Because malicious or unfounded referrals, once assessed and dismissed, may not be resuscitated for convenience.
Because failure to record medical crisis as context is not negligence — it is targeted erasure.
Because safeguarding must not become a revolving door of disproven suspicion.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 47 – Misuse of assessment when threshold is not met
Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR, Article 8 – Invasion of family life based on disproven claims
Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Inaccurate or misleading records and retention of irrelevant material
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination based on illness and protective parental conduct
As Bromley’s Family Law (11th Ed., p. 641) confirms:
“Local authorities must ensure that their interventions are both necessary and lawful. A pattern of overreaction to referrals, particularly where health needs are ignored or misconstrued, risks violating the family’s rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.”
V. SWANK’s Position
We reject the cowardice of authorities who cannot admit when they were wrong.
We reject the bureaucratic bloodsport of dragging up dismissed claims to justify current oppression.
We reject the narrative contortions that turn asthma into negligence and resilience into pathology.
This case was closed.
The allegations were refuted.
And SWANK will not allow that closure to be forgotten just because it doesn’t suit Westminster’s ongoing myth-making.
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.
⚖️ 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.