“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 GDPR breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDPR breach. Show all posts

Chromatic v CFC: The Curious Case of the Unfired Solicitor Who Wouldn’t Leave



🪞Who Told Alan?

Or: A Data Breach in Gown and Wig


Filed: 3 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK–083–MULLEM–DATADECAY
PDF Filename: 2025-08-03_Addendum_PrivacyBreach_AlanMullem_DisclosureObjection.pdf
Summary:
A formal directive issued to the Central Family Court instructing the immediate removal of Alan Mullem from all case correspondence. Mr. Mullem, now a named defendant in an active civil claim and criminal filing, has been improperly receiving private information.


I. What Happened

On Sunday evening, with the dignity of the calendar intact and the fury of the GDPR unsheathed, I sent the following email to eleven addresses at the Central Family Court:

Subject: Immediate Instruction – Cease Disclosure of My Information to Alan Mullem
Time sent: 3 August 2025 at 19:50
From: Polly Chromatic (Litigant in Person)
To: All relevant CFC inboxes, including Orders, Hearings, Public and Private Law teams
CC: Myself, because one must witness one's own elegance

The message was simple — stop sending my personal information to a man I am suing for misconduct.

Alan Mullem is:

  • named defendant in my £88M civil claim

  • The subject of an active private criminal prosecution (LOI)

  • Not and never has been my solicitor

And yet... documents continued to flow his way. Quietly. Obscenely. Illegally.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • 📌 GDPR breach (Article 5, 6, and 32 — data minimisation, lawful processing, and confidentiality)

  • 📌 Article 8 ECHR violation — interference with private and family life

  • 📌 Breach of procedural integrity — listed representative error despite multiple rebuttals

  • 📌 Judicial misconduct risk — if errors persist after formal correction

This isn't just bureaucratic decay. It’s administrative contamination — and it threatens both privacy and the outcome of this case.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the court has no excuse.
Because the Notice of Acting in Person was filed.
Because the judge received direct bundles.
Because Mr. Mullem is suing material, not serving counsel.

This is not a clerical accident. It is a procedural misrepresentation so egregious it now has its own filename.


IV. Violations

  • ❌ GDPR 2018 – unlawful data disclosure

  • ❌ Children Act 1989 – breach of confidentiality concerning minors

  • ❌ Civil Procedure Rules – misidentification of party representation

  • ❌ Judicial impartiality doctrine – indirect leakage to a known defendant


V. SWANK’s Position

If you are still sending my case materials to a man I have legally accused,
If he still appears as my representative while being sued for retaliation,
If my role as Litigant in Person remains unregistered in your records —

Then your database is not just out of date.
It is compromised.

I file this not to correct you.
I file this so the error itself becomes evidence.

This is no longer about Alan.
It is about the mirror.


⚖️ 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.

In the Matter of a School That Knew — and Chose Not to Remember



🪞The Disclosure That Was Ignored

In the Matter of Drayton Park and the Selective Blindness of Institutions


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 15 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A14-DRAYTONPARKDISCLOSURE
Court File Name: 2025-07-15_Addendum_DraytonPark_EvidenceOfDisclosure.pdf
Summary: A formal addendum documenting that clear written disclosures were made to Drayton Park Primary School regarding lawful home education and health-related barriers — disclosures later erased or denied in social work and safeguarding records.


I. What Happened

On multiple occasions in 2022 and 2023, Polly Chromatic informed Drayton Park Primary School of the following:

  • That her children were being lawfully educated at home;

  • That environmental health hazards (including sewer gas leaks) were affecting the family’s health;

  • That she would not cooperate with agencies that had previously harmed her children.

These were not subtle suggestions. They were written, timestamped, and grounded in legal and medical fact. The school acknowledged receipt. No truancy proceedings followed. No referrals to the local authority for education failure occurred at the time.

And yet — months later — these communications vanished from the narrative.
In records shared by Westminster Children’s Services, Polly’s lawful disclosures were recast as evasionnon-cooperation, or even concealment.
The absence of school attendance was framed as neglect. The refusal to engage with known harmful actors was framed as obstruction. And the disclosures — which had already been made — were strategically “forgotten.”

This addendum serves as a rebuttal to fiction.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Drayton Park was explicitly informed of lawful home education, and that information was received and acknowledged.

  2. Health-related barriers were clearly disclosed — including serious environmental risks — and documented in writing.

  3. There is no lawful or factual basis for later claiming that Polly was non-communicative, evasive, or negligent.

  4. The local authority’s version of events is factually untrue and administratively deceptive.

  5. The school’s inaction followed by passive complicity enabled this false narrative to harden into institutional record.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because rewriting history is not safeguarding — it is manipulation.
Because a mother who discloses trauma, illness, and legal preference is not failing — she is fulfilling her duties.
Because a school’s failure to honour its own knowledge is not ignorance — it is cowardice.
Because false safeguarding narratives often begin with selective memory — and end with systemic cruelty.


IV. Violations

  • Education Act 1996, s.7 – Duty met through home education

  • Children Act 1989, s.47 – Duty to investigate based on fact, not erasure

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Failure to record accurate parental correspondence

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination based on disability-related non-engagement

  • ECHR, Article 8 – Respect for family life and lawful education decisions


V. SWANK’s Position

We reject the use of selective record-keeping to fabricate institutional narratives.
We reject the rebranding of home education as risk simply because it was outside the state’s preferred mode.
We reject the notion that schools and local authorities may collude in forgetting.

This was not neglect. This was disclosure.
This was not absence. This was autonomy.
And this was not missed — it was deliberately erased.

We preserve it here.


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.

Documented Retaliation: Second Visual Breach One Hour After Medical Warning



⟡ He Came Back. ⟡
One Hour After the Warning Was Posted — He Returned. Same Door. Same Chute. Same Theatre.

Filed: 15 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INTIMIDATION-ENTRY-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025.06.15_RetaliatoryEntry_BicycleDeparture_PostWarningSurveillance.pdf
Video and photographic evidence of repeated visual breach attempt following SWANK’s Advance Notice. Second contact. Same actor. No delivery. No justification. No entry permitted.


I. What Happened

On Sunday 15 June 2025, at exactly 2:00 PM, an hour after SWANK London Ltd. publicly issued a medical and procedural Advance Notice, the same man returned to the Director’s private residence.

This time:

• He was not buzzed into the building
• He lingered near the entry
• He made no delivery
• He attempted no lawful communication
• He left — on a bicycle
• The entire event was captured on film

This was not a courier completing a task.
It was a voluntary, second visit — conducted immediately after a public restriction was published.

There is no neutrality in the timing.
There is no ambiguity in the footage.
There is only deliberate presence after clear prohibition.


II. What the Incident Establishes

• The actor returned post-notification — a procedural defiance, not logistical oversight
• Entry was explicitly refused — there was no buzzer activation or access granted
• His continued physical proximity confirms deliberate intent
• The use of a bicycle affirms that this was not a route-based delivery, but a discretionary act
• The behaviour is consistent with coercive surveillance under theatrical pretext

We are no longer recording “visits.”
We are recording repeat offences.


III. Violations

The event constitutes further breach of the following protections:

• Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability-related boundary ignored following explicit instruction
• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Continued architectural surveillance of private residence
• UK GDPR – Repeated attempt to gain visual data of private interior space
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Contact made after formal withdrawal
• Safeguarding Guidance – Use of delivery staging to simulate procedural presence
• Judicial Review Protocols – Escalation after legal boundary declaration
• Disability Retaliation Statutes – Contact made knowingly in response to medical directive


IV. SWANK’s Position

This is not a sequence of misunderstandings.
It is a series of retaliatory performances, committed after formal boundaries were established, with increasing proximity, repetition, and timing.

The man returned — after the warning was issued.
He was denied entry.
He was filmed.
He left — with no purpose served but presence itself.

This is not documentation of service.
It is documentation of deliberate intimidation via procedural mimicry.

It has been logged.
It has been archived.
And it will be included in all future judicial review filings.

📹 Watch the Footage: Retaliatory Return by Bicycle
https://youtu.be/aA2dFAif3gc


Let me know if you'd like a bundled version combining both visits, or a header note for court referencing.⟡ 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.

If Kafka Had a Filing Cabinet, It Would Belong to Westminster



🕊️ A Formal Petition for the Restoration of Law: Complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office Regarding Westminster and RBKC’s Data Evasion

Date: 10 March 2025


To:

The Information Commissioner’s Office – Complaints Team
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF


Subject: Formal Complaint – Westminster and RBKC Social Services' Unlawful Withholding of Personal Records


Dear Esteemed Custodians of Data Rights,

It is with a combination of reluctant ceremony and unassailable principle that I now submit this formal complaint against Westminster Social Services and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), whose approach to personal data appears inspired less by modern law than by the cloistered practices of medieval record-keepers.

Despite submitting multiple, properly constituted Subject Access Requests (SARs) — each written with the kind of precision that would make a barrister weep — I have received either no response or nonsensical evasions that defy both the letter and spirit of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.


I. A Timeline of Silence, Bureaucratic and Otherwise

I formally requested:

  • Access to all personal data held by Westminster Social Services;

  • Access to all personal data held by RBKC Social Services.

What I received:

  • Dead air.

  • Ghostly echoes of vanished professionalism.

  • Kafkaesque correspondence (on rare occasion) that suggested my request had been exiled to some back office shrine of administrative apathy.

This is not mere rudeness. It is a violation of law.


II. Legal Breaches: An Unflattering Catalogue

Their non-compliance is a direct breach of:

  • Article 15 of the UK GDPR (Right of Access) — with no lawful delay, no lawful extension, no lawful excuse.

  • The Data Protection Act 2018 — particularly in relation to timely response standards.

  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000 — for the principle that public information should be accessible, not concealed behind procedural tapestries.


III. Consequences of This Institutional Withholding

This obstruction has resulted in:

  • Severe disadvantage in legal and safeguarding proceedings, where access to personal records is essential to defence and redress;

  • The perpetuation of inaccurate or misleading information, immune from correction due to concealment;

  • Ongoing emotional distress, caused by the galling knowledge that my own personal data is being sequestered by public servants seemingly sworn to opacity.


IV. What I Now Request of the ICO (With the Gravitas the Situation Demands)

I respectfully request:

  1. A full investigation into Westminster and RBKC’s non-compliance;

  2. An enforceable instruction to release all withheld information, in full and unredacted;

  3. Consideration of sanctions or penalties for their unlawful conduct;

  4. Guidance on further recourse, should they continue in their fondness for secrecy.


V. On Deadlines and Decency

As befits proper protocol, I expect a full written response within 28 days. Failure to resolve this will result in escalation to further legal avenues, including but not limited to:

  • The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman;

  • Direct litigation for breach of data rights;

  • And, if necessary, the European Court of Justice of My Patience.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint — and kindly advise which gallant officer of your esteemed organisation shall be charged with untangling this web of bureaucratic neglect.


🎀 Yours with due expectation of the restoration of lawful order,

Polly Chromatic

Founder, SWANK – Standards and Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms
"Because even data has a right to liberty."