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 LSCP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LSCP. Show all posts

Chromatic v. RBKC & Westminster [PC-105]


⟡ Safeguarding as Retaliation: RBKC & Westminster’s Contradiction of Care ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WESTMINSTER/PC-105
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-105_LSCP_RBKCWestminster_SafeguardingMisuseComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint to the LSCP documenting the misuse of safeguarding procedures as retaliation against a disabled parent following institutional complaints.

I. What Happened

Between January and April 2024, social workers within RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services escalated case status from Child in Need (CIN) to Child Protection (CP) without lawful evidence, initiating safeguarding procedures immediately after formal grievances were lodged against NHS Trusts and police regulators.
Named participants include Samira Issa, Edward Kendall, and Glen Peache.
The escalation was accompanied by pressure-based visits, communication demands during respiratory collapse, and distortion of medical referrals from Chelsea & Westminster Hospital — producing measurable emotional and medical harm.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Pattern of retaliatory safeguarding following protected complaints
• Breach of disability and communication adjustments under the Equality Act 2010
• Article 6 and Article 3 violations of the Human Rights Act 1998
• Institutional misuse of Working Together to Safeguard Children standards
• Evidence sufficient for cross-agency oversight review and inclusion in the SWANK Retaliation Index

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• Demonstrates structural discrimination and procedural malpractice
• Provides evidentiary continuity with subsequent Westminster misconduct bundles
• Preserves historical proof of disability retaliation within safeguarding frameworks
• Serves as precedent in the Mirror Court Chronicle of Retaliation Noir

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Equality Act 2010 — Failure to make reasonable adjustments
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3 & 6 (Basic Human Dignity & Fair Hearing)
• Data Protection Act 2018 — Unlawful information sharing
• Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) — Procedural abuse of escalation authority

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “parental non-cooperation.” This is retaliatory safeguarding under the guise of concern.

We do not accept false medical referrals.
We reject procedural harassment as practice.
We document institutional cruelty until it is formally acknowledged.

⟡ 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:

The Safeguarding That Needed Safeguarding.


⟡ “They Called It Safeguarding. We Called It Retaliation.” ⟡

A supporting evidence bundle submitted in response to Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) misconduct, documenting retaliatory actions against Polly Chromatic and her children.

Filed: 25 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-LSCP/EVIDENCE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-25_SWANK_LSCP_SafeguardingMisuse_SupportingEvidence.pdf
This evidence bundle includes formal complaints, correspondence, and documented patterns of safeguarding abuse filed with or related to the LSCP.

I. What Happened

This file supports Polly Chromatic’s complaint that:

  • Safeguarding was used as a threat, not a protection

  • Contact attempts and procedural escalation occurred after disability declarations

  • No child protection risk was substantiated, yet repeated pressure was applied

  • Cross-institutional actors coordinated efforts to discredit, surveil, or intimidate the family

  • Medical exemptions were denied in direct contravention of legal standards

II. What the Bundle Establishes

  • Pattern of retaliation under the false pretext of child protection

  • Formal notification to LSCP of unlawful practices

  • Inclusion of medical correspondence, legal complaints, and council communications

  • Direct challenge to the legitimacy of LSCP-involved interventions

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because “supporting evidence” becomes historical proof the moment it's ignored.
Because LSCPs don’t just protect — sometimes they shield misconduct.
Because if the LSCP didn’t investigate this properly,
the archive now will.

IV. Violations

  • Misuse of statutory safeguarding powers

  • Failure to follow LSCP ethical oversight obligations

  • Disability-based discrimination and interference

  • Child rights violations under UK and international law

  • Collusion between social services and external partners to suppress lawful resistance

V. SWANK’s Position

This was never about child safety.
It was about professional safety — for those who harmed disabled children and wanted to cover it.

Now, thanks to this file, the LSCP’s silence is on the record too.

⟡ 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.

No comments: