⟡ Addendum: On the Elegance of Collapse — The Retaliation of Care in Westminster and RBKC ⟡
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-104
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-104_HighCourt_SocialWorkRetaliationMedicalEndangermentAddendum.pdf
Summary: A judicial addendum evidencing medical endangerment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory safeguarding escalation between 2022–2024.
I. What Happened
Between 2022 and 2024, social workers acting under RBKC and Westminster invoked safeguarding processes during periods of confirmed illness and respiratory collapse.
Each escalation coincided precisely with formal complaint activity, including submissions to the JCIO, EHRC, and IOPC.
Despite explicit medical warnings from the claimant’s GP — including instruction on 27 February 2024 not to convene a meeting during acute illness — the authorities persisted, causing physical collapse, psychological trauma, and procedural humiliation.
The chronology is now fixed in archive:
• Nov 2022: CP escalation post-clear assessments
• Jun 2023: Second assessment found no grounds
• 3 Jan 2024: Respiratory crisis following misfiled safeguarding
• 27–29 Feb 2024: Meetings forced during illness, in defiance of medical advice
II. What the Document Establishes
• Causal link between complaint activity and safeguarding escalation
• Repeated refusal to accommodate disability under the Equality Act 2010 (Sections 20, 27)
• Breach of Article 3 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998
• Evidence of psychological harm to both claimant and children
• Formal foundation for damages under N1 civil claim and Judicial Review
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• Demonstrates the weaponisation of welfare under medical duress
• Forms the connective tissue between the LSCP complaint and later High Court filings
• Preserves the chronology of retaliatory collapse for international oversight and future citation
• Establishes the archival principle that “crisis is never consent”
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20 and 27 (Reasonable Adjustment; Victimisation)
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6 and 8 (Degrading Treatment; Fair Process; Family Life)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Misuse of medical information
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Ethical malpractice through disregard of health evidence
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not “non-engagement.”
This is respiratory retaliation masquerading as procedure.
We do not accept the medical erasure of a disabled parent.
We reject the re-branding of illness as defiance.
We document every refusal to postpone compassion.
⟡ 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.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
Filed by: Polly Chromatic