⟡ Complaint Filed: Discriminatory Exclusion at Porchester Hall ⟡
“Your staff assumed our child didn’t belong. They were wrong. And now it’s on record.”
Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/DISCRIM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_RBKC_DiscriminationComplaint_PorchesterHall_ChildExclusion.pdf
A formal complaint submitted to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea regarding the exclusion and mistreatment of a mixed heritage child at Porchester Hall Swimming Pool. Alleged racialised assumptions, misapplication of policy, and discriminatory treatment are now filed for public record.
I. What Happened
On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic, on behalf of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to RBKC regarding the conduct of staff at Porchester Hall Pool.
The complaint describes:
A child being prevented from swimming without cause
Staff making inappropriate comments about her size and age, despite her being clearly in uniform
A pattern of suspicion and policing not extended to other (white-presenting) children
A lack of courtesy or accountability from staff and front desk
A refusal to provide names for the purposes of complaint filing
The child in question is of mixed heritage and small stature — factors the complaint alleges were visually profiled and institutionally penalised.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That RBKC facilities may be enforcing behavioural policy in a racially coded and inconsistent manner
That a child was excluded on appearance, not conduct
That the borough has a duty to review training, staffing, and complaint handling
That a formal record now exists — both municipally and archivally
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because exclusion is policy when it repeats.
Because a child's body should not be a threat.
Because polite confrontation isn’t always enough — sometimes, the archive must intervene.
This complaint wasn’t filed just for a refund.
It was filed for dignity.
And it’s now permanently part of the record of how public institutions treat young Black and brown children — especially when no one’s watching.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept racialised suspicion dressed up as concern.
We do not accept exclusion based on size, tone, or guessed identity.
We do not accept that staff training ends at the lifeguard chair.
SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If a child is excluded without cause,
We file it.
If a borough cannot name its staff,
We name the failure.
And if Porchester Hall can’t tell the difference between a rule and a reflex,
We will.
⟡ 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.