⟡ “They Ignored My Disability. They Bypassed My Language. Then They Took My Children.” ⟡
Discrimination Was Not a Side Effect — It Was the Structure.
Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/EHRC/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_EHRC_DisabilityLanguageFamilyRightsBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission alleging disability discrimination, linguistic exclusion, and family rights violations by Westminster Council.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal rights complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The complaint outlines how Westminster Children’s Services orchestrated the removal of her four U.S. citizen children while disregarding every known disability accommodation — including her legal right to written-only communication due to muscle dysphonia and PTSD. The Council also contacted the children’s Haitian Kreyòl-speaking father in English, denying him the opportunity to participate. Medical care was disrupted. No judicial order was presented. All institutional protections were disabled — except the ones protecting the council from accountability.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The parent’s communication needs were repeatedly ignored despite documented disability
The removal occurred with no judicial transparency and no process
The father was denied access due to a language barrier Westminster knew existed
The children’s medical treatment was disrupted without consultation or cause
The incident reflects a pattern of discriminatory safeguarding misuse and systemic retaliation
This was not a failure to accommodate. It was a denial of personhood in policy format.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because accessibility is not conditional on the council’s convenience.
Because multilingualism is not a barrier — but ignoring it is.
Because safeguarding weaponised against the disabled is not protection — it’s persecution.
Because this wasn’t a misstep. It was a mapped route through institutional neglect.
Because SWANK is not a documentation project — it is a record of what was deliberately erased.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 21, and 29 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments; indirect discrimination
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, and 14 – No fair hearing; breach of family life; discriminatory exclusion from rights
Children Act 1989 – Unlawful removal without hearing or due process
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3, 9, 12, 24 – Best interests, separation, participation, health
CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) – Denial of communication-based access
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was systemic disablement of rights and recognition.
This wasn’t neglect. It was discrimination structured as protocol.
This wasn’t failure. It was the function working exactly as designed.
SWANK files this complaint not to request justice — but to mark the absence of it.
We do not submit rights complaints. We issue indictments in archive format.
This wasn’t accidental. It was institutional choreography — and we logged every step.
⟡ 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.
⟡ 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.