⟡ Dispatches Tipped Off. State Retaliation Logged. TV Was Notified. ⟡
“A disabled mother filed lawful complaints. The state responded with safeguarding powers. Now Channel 4 knows.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MEDIA/DISPATCHES-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Dispatches_TipOff_DisabledFamily_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal tip submitted to Channel 4’s Dispatches, placing legal, medical, and regulatory evidence into the hands of national investigative journalism. Describes the coordinated abuse of safeguarding frameworks against a disabled family in lawful proceedings. The press has been briefed. The archive has logged it.
I. What Happened
On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a documentary tip to Channel 4’s Dispatches team, outlining:
A pattern of multi-agency misconduct
The use of fabricated safeguarding concerns following civil complaints
Retaliation by police, NHS trusts, and social workers
A £23 million claim for legal damages, already filed
A press release enclosing statutory references and legal breaches
This tip is not an emotional disclosure — it is a forensic, jurisdictional act of witness.
II. What the Tip Establishes
That a major UK broadcaster has been placed on formal notice
That the evidence submitted includes medical, legal, and procedural documentation
That this case is not isolated — it mirrors national patterns of disability retaliation masked as care
That Channel 4 now holds recorded knowledge of the harm — and can no longer claim neutrality through ignorance
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because safeguarding is being used to retaliate.
Because the courts are slow, the regulators are silent, and the archive can’t wait.
Because once the story is told,
They’ll say no one knew.
They’ll say the press weren’t contacted.
They’ll say the public never saw.
So SWANK shows them:
The press were told.
The documents were sent.
And now the file lives online.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that TV must wait until after a tragedy.
We do not accept that evidence needs virality to deserve coverage.
We do not accept that a mother must choose between legal pursuit and her child’s protection.
SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the state targets us,
We target the narrative.
If the system hides it,
We submit it.
And if the story never airs,
We air it here — with a file name, a date stamp, and a jurisdictional receipt.
⟡ 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.