A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 High Court of Justice; Central Family Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label High Court of Justice; Central Family Court. Show all posts

Chromatic v. RBKC [PC-102]


⟡ Addendum: The Collapse of Procedure — RBKC and the Ritual of Retaliatory Care ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HIGH-COURT/PC-102
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-102_HighCourt_RBKCProceduralRetaliationMedicalEndangermentAddendum.pdf
Summary: Addendum to the N1 Claim detailing RBKC’s coordinated misuse of safeguarding procedure during periods of medical instability, amounting to retaliation and disability discrimination.

I. What Happened

Between 2022 and 2024, Children’s Services under the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea used safeguarding mechanisms as instruments of retaliation against a disabled parent. Each escalation followed protected complaints and occurred during documented illness — a pattern so evident that it resembles policy more than error.

Key episodes include:
• Safeguarding escalations pursued after two clear assessments (Nov 2022, Jun 2023).
• Refusal to delay Child Protection meeting despite COVID-positive status (Feb 2024).
• Forced procedural contact during acute respiratory collapse (Jan 2024).
• Systematic disregard of GP and hospital evidence.
• Denial of written-only communication adjustments contrary to the Equality Act 2010.
• Procedural pressure intensified after regulatory complaints were filed.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Direct causal link between regulatory complaints and procedural retaliation.
• Evidence of safeguarding deployed as disciplinary instrument rather than protective tool.
• Violation of statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998.
• Medical endangerment by forcing participation during confirmed illness.
• Institutional liability for cumulative psychological and physical harm.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To record how “concern” can be weaponised as control.
• To preserve an audit trail of RBKC’s procedural abuse of chronically ill parents.
• To demonstrate the intersection of bureaucratic vanity and medical neglect.
• To cement its place within the Mirror Court Archive of Retaliation Noir.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20 & 27 (Reasonable Adjustment; Victimisation)
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3 & 8 (Protection from Degrading Treatment; Respect for Family Life)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Unlawful handling and disregard of medical data
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Procedural non-compliance and malpractice

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “failure to engage.” This is respiratory retaliation in administrative costume.

We do not accept the medicalisation of punishment.
We reject the practice of forcing compliance through illness.
We document every breath they turn into a meeting agenda.

⟡ 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

⚖️ 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.
No comments: