SWANK v Parliament: Justice Committee Refers Safeguarding Misconduct to Education Without Review

---

⟡ “The Mold Was Real. The Misconduct Was Documented. Parliament Said: Try Education Instead.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Scrutiny Committee. It Was an Inbox with a Referral Link — Filed With Parliamentary Postcode Contempt.

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PARLIAMENT/JC-REFERRALDISMISSAL-MOISTUREBRIEF
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_ParliamentaryReferral_JusticeCommittee_SafeguardingBrief.pdf
Submission of The Ministry of Moisture brief to the Justice Committee, requesting formal scrutiny of systemic safeguarding misuse. Dismissed with referral to the Education Committee despite the content detailing legal process abuse, court failures, and institutional retaliation.

---

I. What Happened

On 28 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a 4-page investigative brief to the Justice Committee of the UK Parliament. The brief described:

• Systemic retaliatory safeguarding abuse

• Institutional discrimination against disabled families

• Procedural misconduct and record tampering

• Unlawful removal of children

• Cross-borough complicity between Westminster and RBKC

The Committee replied on 29 May 2025:

• Thanked her for the submission

• Declared the issues “outside of the Committee’s remit”

• Directed her to contact the Education Select Committee

• Did not request evidence, testimony, or referral to any inquiry in progress

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Parliament was placed on notice of high-level safeguarding misconduct

• The Justice Committee admitted awareness — but declined review

• Despite implications for courts, process rights, and legal fairness, the issues were dismissed as educational

• The refusal suggests deliberate jurisdictional displacement, not oversight

• This exchange proves the structural limits of parliamentary scrutiny when abuse becomes procedural

This wasn’t Parliament. It was a jurisdictional pass-the-parcel — played with children’s rights.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when Parliament sees injustice and redirects it to the wrong inbox, that’s not process — that’s protectionism.
Because legal abuse doesn’t become educational just because it involves children.
Because we didn’t send a curriculum. We sent evidence of systemic failure.
Because referral doesn’t erase receipt. And silence doesn’t unsee the brief.

---

IV. Violations

• Parliamentary Standards of Scrutiny – Failure to acknowledge content relevant to justice and due process

• Children Act 1989 – No effort to assess institutional failures affecting safeguarding

• Equality Act 2010, Section 149 – Neglect of disability discrimination content

• UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of access to legal remedy by jurisdictional misrouting

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 & 6 – Procedural and familial rights denied scrutiny

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t due process. It was due deferral.
This wasn’t oversight. It was outsight — jurisdictionally blind and archivally recorded.
This wasn’t education. It was retaliation, misrouted with institutional manners.

SWANK formally archives this referral-and-dismissal as a velvet notice of complicity by omission.
We sent the brief.
They passed the link.
And now it’s filed — forever.

---

⟡ 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 parliamentary evasion deserves print.

© 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.

---

Second Title: SWANK v Parliament: Justice Committee Refers Safeguarding Misconduct to Education Without Review

Court Labels: Justice Committee, Parliamentary Referral, Safeguarding Misuse, Mold Evidence, Institutional Evasion, Procedural Misconduct

Search Description:
Justice Committee declines to review safeguarding abuse brief; SWANK logs it as parliamentary dismissal of systemic misconduct.

Court Filename:
📎 2025-05-29_SWANK_ParliamentaryReferral_JusticeCommittee_SafeguardingBrief.pdf

Would you like this cross-referenced with your pending Education Committee version or tagged to your Jurisdictional Deflections portfolio?

Justice Not in Session: When Committees Become Corridors

---

⟡ “This Isn’t Our Jurisdiction — Please Moisture Somewhere Else.” ⟡
Parliament’s Justice Committee Declines a Safeguarding Abuse Submission, Referring It to Education with No Comment on Content

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PARLIAMENT/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_JusticeCommittee_DeflectsSafeguardingBriefing.pdf
Summary: The Justice Committee declined a formal safeguarding evidence submission, stating it was out of remit and redirecting it to the Education Committee.

---

I. What Happened

On 28 May 2025, a detailed evidence brief titled “The Ministry of Moisture: How Social Work Became a Mold Factory”was submitted to the Parliamentary Justice Committee. The brief outlined patterns of safeguarding misuse, retaliation, and child endangerment. It drew from formal complaints, legal filings, and first-hand documentation.

On 29 May 2025, the Justice Committee replied. They acknowledged receipt but stated the issues lay outside their remit — redirecting the complaint to the Education Committee without comment on the content, its seriousness, or how cross-departmental safeguarding failures are to be handled.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Parliamentary committees apply rigid jurisdictional boundaries even in cases involving overlapping public protection failures
• A comprehensive evidence brief involving legal retaliation and child endangerment received no substantive reply
• The procedural structure of Parliament makes full institutional accountability nearly impossible
• The Justice Committee offered no support, no inquiry mechanism, no acknowledgment of risk
• Referral to another committee became a form of official avoidance

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you submit a record of institutional harm to a parliamentary oversight body — and the reply is “wrong department” — that reply becomes part of the harm.
Because deflection isn’t just bureaucratic. It’s constitutional.
Because the Justice Committee chose to see safeguarding violations as not about justice.

SWANK logs the corridors where evidence goes unheard — because the walls have names.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a parliamentary justice body can opt out of justice when children’s lives are at stake.
We do not accept that investigative briefings should be redirected without read-through, comment, or commitment.
We do not accept that jurisdictional fencing is a valid excuse for the abandonment of public duty.

This wasn’t a misfire. This was a soft denial with a hyperlink.
And SWANK will publish every committee that chose not to care.

---

⟡ 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.