Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): PTSD

Showing posts with label PTSD. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v NHS: Clinical Letter Requested to Confirm Psychological Harm After Child Removal

⟡ “My Children Were Taken. I Asked My Doctor for a Letter. That, Too, Will Now Be Filed.” ⟡
When Clinical Reality Meets Institutional Fantasy, Only One Side Brings Medical Records.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/CLINICAL-IMPACT-LETTER-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_NHS_ClinicalLetter_ChildRemovalMentalHealthImpact.pdf
Formal written request to NHS consultant Philip Reid for a clinical support letter confirming psychological deterioration and disability impact following the state-forced removal of four children.

I. What Happened

In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written clinical request to Dr. Philip Reid (NHS) regarding the acute medical consequences of her children’s removal by Westminster Children’s Services. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were taken without notice, accommodations, or medical coordination on 23 June 2025. This letter formally requests medical acknowledgment of exacerbated PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma, alongside the clinical impact of forced separation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The removal of children caused immediate clinical deterioration
Ongoing legal proceedings require medical confirmation of harm
Communication access needs (written-only directives) remain active and violated
Emotional stability is now conditioned on reunification
The NHS is requested to confirm what the archive has already documented: this removal is not only legal — it is medical

This wasn’t parenting under strain. It was clinical harm triggered by institutional force.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because clinical collapse is not a footnote — it’s a jurisdictional event.
Because this isn’t a health scare. It’s health sabotage with paperwork.
Because medical records don’t lie, even when social workers do.
Because if the NHS responds, it confirms state harm.
And if it doesn’t, that silence will be filed next.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known medical and communication disabilities
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, 8 – Inhumane treatment, denial of access, violation of private/family life
UNCRPD Articles 13 & 25 – Denial of accessible healthcare and protective intervention for disabled litigants
NHS Duty of Care – Emotional and respiratory health jeopardised by state actions without coordination
Family Procedure Rules – Exclusion of medical context in family intervention planning

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a parental reaction. It was a medical emergency caused by legal misconduct.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a collapse in breathing, voice, and psychological integrity.
This wasn’t a request for help. It was a request for documentation — because we already knew the answer.

SWANK hereby logs this letter as a formal evidentiary request.
Not because the court demanded it.
But because our lungs did.

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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: EHRC Complaint Filed Over Disability Discrimination and Child Removal Retaliation

⟡ “You Took Four Disabled American Children. You Ignored the Diagnosis. You Breached the Law.” ⟡
Retaliation Is Not a Safeguarding Strategy. Especially When It’s Documented — and Filed.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/EHRC/COMPLAINT-DISABILITY-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Complaint_EHRC_DisabilityDiscriminationAndSafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission documenting institutional retaliation, disability discrimination, and family separation without lawful basis.

I. What Happened

In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission detailing Westminster Children’s Services’ removal of her four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025. No warrant was presented. No hearing occurred. No accommodations were made for her diagnosed disabilities: muscle dysphonia, asthma, and PTSD caused by state harassment. The complaint includes psychiatric records, live litigation references, and archive links. One child — Regal, age 16 — was removed without legal basis, triggering international concern.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Removal occurred without prior notice, judicial order, or medical plan
The mother was denied communication accommodations despite clear documentation
Four disabled children, all U.S. citizens, were placed at immediate health and legal risk
The act followed the public filing of a Judicial Review and criminal referral
This was not a safeguarding response — it was retribution for legal exposure

This wasn’t oversight. It was administrative revenge dressed in procedural language.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when retaliation targets the disabled, it becomes a matter of public record — and international accountability.
Because the archive exists to expose institutional choreography, not to forgive it.
Because this removal wasn’t lawful — it was reactive punishment for a parent who documented too well.
Because Regal’s asthma treatment wasn’t paused — it was erased.
Because “family life” means nothing if institutions can unmake it on a Tuesday, without telling anyone.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 and 29 – Refusal of adjustments; discrimination in public services
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 and 14 – Breach of family life; non-discrimination
Children Act 1989, Section 31 – Absence of threshold criteria for removal
UNCRPD Article 13 – Denial of justice to a disabled parent
UNCRC Articles 9, 24 – Family separation without hearing; disruption of medical treatment

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a child welfare act. It was a disabled whistleblower takedown — carried out via children.
This wasn’t state failure. It was state force in the service of silence.
This wasn’t procedural. It was predatory.

SWANK has filed this complaint not merely for accountability — but for jurisdictional rupture.
We are not asking if this was lawful.
We are stating: it was documented — and unlawful.

This is not an appeal. It is a record. And now, it's a citation.

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.

Polly Chromatic v Family Court: Formal Complaint Over Refused Disability Accommodations in Proceedings

⟡ “You Had the Diagnosis. You Had the Documents. You Still Delivered the Court Process Like I Wasn’t Disabled.” ⟡
Access Isn’t Abstract. It’s the Law You Chose to Breach.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/COMPLAINT-DISABILITYACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_FamilyCourt_DisabilityAccommodationFailure.pdf
Formal complaint submitted to the Family Court for its failure to provide legally mandated disability accommodations during critical safeguarding proceedings.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Family Court administration documenting its repeated and unlawful failure to accommodate her disability access needs. Despite years of documented diagnoses — including eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD triggered by unannounced contact — the Court failed to coordinate with her solicitor, refused to facilitate written-only engagement, and allowed Westminster Children’s Services to deliver supervision orders in person, without consent or prior notice. The procedural exclusion was complete — and deliberate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The Court was on full, written notice of specific disability-related access needs
No written-only participation option was arranged, offered, or acknowledged
No attempt was made to coordinate with her legal representative
The Court permitted paper delivery methods known to cause psychological harm
These actions directly violated statutory duties and triggered clinical symptoms

This wasn’t a miscommunication. It was procedural hostility toward the disabled, wrapped in judicial decorum.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because participation should never require survival against your own disability.
Because access needs aren’t theoretical — they’re jurisdictional.
Because the Family Court didn’t forget. It ignored.
Because when the law says “reasonable adjustments,” and the Court does nothing, that silence becomes exclusion.
Because institutional respectability does not excuse architectural ableism.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments and provide equal access to public function
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of a fair hearing due to exclusion
Family Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 3AA – Noncompliance with protections for vulnerable litigants
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – Refusal to ensure effective access to justice
Judicial Office Guidelines – Breach of duty to safeguard against procedural discrimination

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t process. It was a method of procedural silencing.
This wasn’t oversight. It was court-sanctioned erasure.
This wasn’t justice. It was a refusal to acknowledge the disabled as lawful participants.

SWANK does not recognise any ruling issued through inaccessibility.
We do not grant legitimacy to courts that treat disability as inconvenience.
This post is not a complaint. It’s an official entry in the archive of how inclusion was denied — in writing, and by design.

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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Supervision Order Delivered Without Disability Accommodation

⟡ “You Knew I Was Disabled. You Ignored That. Then You Came to My Door With Court Orders.” ⟡
Access Is Not a Courtesy. It’s a Statutory Requirement — Which You Violated With a Smile.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/EQUALITYBREACH-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Complaint_DisabilityViolation_SupervisionOrderNoAccommodation.pdf
Formal documentation of rights violations relating to court communications and supervision order delivery made without disability accommodations.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint documenting Westminster Children’s Services’ deliberate delivery of a supervision order directly to her home — despite being repeatedly and formally notified that she is medically unable to receive verbal or in-person communication due to eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and complex PTSD. The Family Court also failed to provide access accommodations, effectively excluding her from participation. No solicitor notice. No written advance. No compliance with stated and documented medical access needs.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

All relevant parties were on written notice of documented disabilities and required adjustments
A supervision order was hand-delivered in violation of communication protocols
No prior email, written confirmation, or solicitor engagement was made
The Family Court provided no accessible route to participate or respond
The incident caused a documented physical and psychological episode

This wasn’t a breakdown. It was a deliberate choice to override the law in favour of perceived efficiency.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because disability rights are not suspended when court orders are involved.
Because “We didn’t think about that” is not a defence — it’s an admission.
Because when the Family Court collaborates in excluding a disabled litigant, it stops being a neutral forum.
Because accommodation is not a favour. It’s a duty. And what they delivered wasn’t law — it was trauma, hand-delivered.
Because retaliation cloaked in paperwork is still retaliation.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 – Denial of fair hearing due to exclusion
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of supervisory authority in disregard of procedural fairness
Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judiciary of England and Wales) – Judicial duties to accommodate disability
UNCRPD Articles 5, 9, and 13 – Failure to ensure equal access to justice and communication

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t court communication. It was access sabotage.
This wasn’t legal process. It was deliberate institutional invalidation.
This wasn’t negligence. It was a rehearsed breach of disability law — by design, not accident.

SWANK files this document as a declaration:
The next time they say "We weren’t aware," we will point to this — timestamped, filed, and archived.
Not only were they aware. They delivered the breach to our door.

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.

When the Adjustment Is Medical and the Refusal Is Personal.

⟡ “Adjustment Requested. Retaliation Received.” ⟡

A complete evidentiary annex submitted in legal proceedings documenting Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust’s refusal to implement lawful disability adjustments for Polly Chromatic and her children.

Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/ADA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-05_SWANK_GSTT_DisabilityAdjustmentAnnex_FailureToAccommodate.pdf
Includes correspondence, legal declarations, policy references, and clinical context proving discriminatory denial of medical adjustments.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic formally requested reasonable adjustments from GSTT due to:

Severe eosinophilic asthma
Muscle dysphonia and verbal communication barriers
PTSD from prior medical trauma
Sole caregiving for four disabled U.S. citizen children

Despite repeated notices, the Trust refused to implement even basic accommodations — instead escalating institutional surveillance and retaliation.

II. What the Record Establishes

That GSTT was provided with medical records, legal rights citations, and clinical justification
That multiple written requests for adjustments were ignored or denied
That denial of care was tied to Polly Chromatic’s lawful resistance and complaint activity
That these failures led to further medical harm and increased safeguarding pressure

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the NHS is not exempt from the Equality Act.
Because disability rights aren’t suggestions —
they’re statutory obligations.

Because retaliation disguised as “clinical policy” is still retaliation.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010: Failure to make reasonable adjustments
Human Rights Act: Violation of right to healthcare and bodily autonomy
GMC Code of Practice breaches by participating clinicians
Retaliatory denial of care in response to complaints and documentation
Disability discrimination under UK and international law

V. SWANK’s Position

This annex was submitted to show the law was clear.
The request was legal. The need was medical. The refusal was ideological.

Now, the public has the file the NHS tried to ignore.

When the Crown Has the Evidence, the Silence Becomes Complicity.

⟡ “Presented to the Crown. Ignored by the Council.” ⟡

A complete annex of disability-related legal evidence, submitted to Crown Court in May 2025 — proving institutional awareness, non-compliance, and retaliation.

Filed: 15 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/UKCOURT/DISABILITY-ANNEX-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-15_SWANK_CrownCourtAnnex_DisabilityDiscriminationEvidenceBundle.pdf
This bundle contains correspondence, diagnostic confirmations, care conflicts, and safeguarding violations — submitted as formal evidence in a high-level court matter.

I. What Happened

In preparation for legal proceedings, Polly Chromatic compiled this annex to:

Document disability disclosures made to Westminster
Provide diagnostic proof (asthma, PTSD, muscle dysphonia)
Evidence social work retaliation after medical notifications
Record denial of adjustments for Polly and her children
Present Crown-level summary of systemic rights violations

The file includes dated excerpts, medical exhibits, refusal records, and legal arguments filed under U.S. citizen protections.

II. What the Evidence Establishes

Foreknowledge of Polly Chromatic’s disabilities by all public bodies involved
Ongoing rejection of verbal exemption and email-based communication
Safeguarding interference after health disclosures
Cross-border impact on U.S. citizens residing in the UK
Legal basis for international protection and redress

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because Crown Court-level evidence deserves a Crown Court-level public reckoning.
Because you shouldn’t have to go to court just to prove that being disabled isn’t a crime.
Because this wasn’t just a document. It was a signal flare —
sent to the system that kept pretending not to see.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010: Failure to accommodate and protect disabled citizens
UN CRPD: Rights breaches for disabled parent and children
Civil and family law violations: harassment, safeguarding misuse
Cross-jurisdictional disability discrimination affecting American nationals
Suppression of lawful communication rights (email-only exemption)

V. SWANK’s Position

This document proves that Polly Chromatic didn’t just speak up —
she built the case, cited the law, submitted the evidence,
and made sure every single one of them was served.

Now the Crown has it.
And so does the public.

One Hundred Notifications. Zero Adjustments. Total Liability.

⟡ “I Told You in Every Format. You Ignored All of Them.” ⟡

The definitive archive of all disability disclosures, sent to dozens of UK officials — now indexed, timestamped, and submitted as a formal master record.

Filed: 1 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/UKGOV/DISABILITY-CORE-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-01_SWANK_Master_DisabilityNotification_CompleteEmailRecord.pdf
This document consolidates every known email disclosure of medical exemption, PTSD, Eosinophilic Asthma, and verbal disability boundaries — issued by Polly Chromatic on behalf of herself and her four disabled children.

I. What Happened

Between 2023 and 2025, Polly Chromatic issued over 100 individual notifications to a wide matrix of public officials, including:

Westminster City Council
NHS Trusts and consultants
Social Work England
Police and safeguarding coordinators
External legal departments and ombudsman services

Every communication confirmed her medical limitations, requested accommodations, and documented systemic retaliation.

II. What the Record Establishes

Absolute institutional awareness of all disabilities involved
Consistent refusals to respect medical boundaries
Systemic misuse of safeguarding to override protected needs
A pattern of retaliatory intrusion after lawful documentation
A legally admissible timeline of wilful misconduct

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because repeating yourself to power is not a weakness — it's evidence.
Because this document ends the lie that “we didn’t know.”
Because every ignored email is now a page number,
and every disability violation has a digital receipt.

IV. Violations

Breach of the Equality Act 2010 (s.6, s.15, s.20–21, s.149)
Negligence and psychological harm under civil law
Breach of Human Rights (Article 8 – Family Life; Article 14 – Non-discrimination)
Failure to follow statutory safeguarding protocols in disability contexts
Suppression of medically exempt communication methods (verbal exemption)

V. SWANK’s Position

This record doesn’t just prove misconduct.
It proves foreknowledge — and thus, intent.

It proves that Polly Chromatic didn’t “refuse” to engage.
She wrote, emailed, notified, cited law, attached diagnosis — and was met with harassment.
Now those harassers face something else:
A permanent, public archive with their names on every page.

When Everyone’s Been Notified, Every Violation Becomes Intentional.

⟡ “Everyone Was Told. No One Complied.” ⟡

A formal Bates-stamped log of disability notifications, distributed to Westminster, NHS, Social Work England, and police — spanning medical, legal, and safeguarding systems.

Filed: 1 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/UKGOV/DISABILITY-CORE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-01_SWANK_DisabilityNotifications_Multisystem_InactionRecord.pdf
An indexed archive of documented disability disclosures and institutional awareness — systematically ignored. This core record forms the factual basis for civil and international rights violations.

I. What Happened

Over the course of 2023–2025, Polly Chromatic issued a series of formal notifications concerning:

Verbal exemption due to muscle dysphonia
Eosinophilic Asthma and breathing restrictions
PTSD and institutional trauma
Her caregiving role for four disabled U.S. citizen children
The impact of coercive safeguarding intrusions

The notifications were sent to:

Westminster Children’s Services
NHS clinicians (multiple trusts)
Social Work England
Police safeguarding units
Oversight bodies and legal departments

All entries in the document are timestamped, recipient-specific, and sequentially Bates-stamped.

II. What the Record Establishes

Total visibility of disability status by all involved institutions
Chronological proof of repeated medical notification
Evidence that “no one knew” is not legally viable
Structural failure to act on reasonable adjustments
Grounds for civil liability, professional referral, and diplomatic intervention

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because telling someone you’re disabled should matter.
Because “they didn’t know” is no longer true.
Because once they’ve been notified — and they retaliate anyway —
that’s no longer error. That’s policy.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010: Sections 6, 15, 19, 20, and 21
Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149)
Children Act 1989 (parenting disruption and child harm)
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Civil torts: negligence, harassment, emotional distress

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a document.
It is proof of foreknowledge.
It makes every retaliatory visit, every safeguarding threat, every ignored plea
a choice — not a mistake.

And now that choice has a timestamp.
A stamp number.
A PDF.

And a public record.

Disability Rights Denied in a Whisperless System

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 3 December 2024
“Advocacy Required, Adjustments Refused”

Filed Under: Disability Assessment · Adjustment Failure · Advocacy Demand · Voice-Based Exclusion · Sovereign Communication · SWANK London Ltd

—

Dear RBKC Customer Services (and Everyone Else Ignoring the Law),

I wrote:

“I need an assessment for advocacy services for my disabilities…”

And what I received in return was silence — that bureaucratic shrug in email form.

Apparently, in your systems:

PTSD is a character flaw
Severe eosinophilic asthma is an inconvenience
Muscle dysphonia is just “non-cooperation”

And verbal pain?
You treat it as defiance.

Not a single adjustment.
Not from the police. Not from the borough.
Not even from the departments charged with upholding rights.

What do we call a structure that insists on voice when voice is the wound?

Ableist.

I do not request compliance.
I require it.

You are now formally notified:
All further communication must be made to an appointed advocate —
or it will be redirected to the SWANK Archive for publication and legal indexing.

—

📍 Assessment Denied. Archive Begun.
Polly Chromatic
Disability Formalist & Advocate-in-Chief
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Adjustments Owed.

How Bureaucratic Intrusion Shatters Mental Stability.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 10 January 2025
𝒮𝐸𝑅𝐼𝒪𝒰𝒮 𝒫𝒜𝒩𝐼𝒞 𝒜𝒯𝒯𝒜𝒞𝒦𝒮: 𝒲𝒽𝑒𝓃 𝒮𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝒲𝑜𝓇𝓀𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝐵𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒯𝓇𝒾𝑔𝑔𝑒𝓇𝓈

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Panic Disorder · Social Worker Trauma · Institutional Stressors · Mental Health Breakdown · SWANK Psychological Harassment Record

📩 THE EMAIL YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE

“I’m having constant panic attacks every time I have to interact with social workers and associated issues now and can no longer be attentive to you.”

This is not burnout.
This is not dramatic exaggeration.
This is clinical destabilisation engineered by repeated, coercive contact from state agents in lanyards.

🧠 TRAUMA ADMINISTERED BY POLICY

Social workers are no longer therapeutic presences.
They are psychiatric contaminants, routinely reactivating PTSD, asthma, and emotional collapse.

Each unsanctioned visit induces:

Autonomic escalation (chest pain, tremors, suffocation)
Communication shutdown (telepathic withdrawal, email silence)
Hypervigilance (doors locked, phones off, breathing restricted)
Neurological refusal to participate in state charades

This is not social care.
This is medical endangerment by policy theatre.

⚠️ NOT A PLEA — A PERMANENT ENTRY

This statement forms part of a formal medico-legal record of trauma provoked by Westminster’s safeguarding units and their subsidiaries.

You are not receiving correspondence.
You are being archived.

Polly Chromatic
Archivist of Escalation. Sovereign of Mental Boundary.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Distress Logged.

I’m Done Explaining Asthma, Dysphonia, and Dignity to the Government.

🖋 𝒮𝒲𝒜𝒩𝒦 Dispatch | 15 January 2025
TEN YEARS OF HARASSMENT IS NOT “HELP.” IT’S A MEDICAL CONDITION.

📍 Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
🗂 Filed Under: Eosinophilic Asthma · Muscle Tension Dysphonia · State-Induced PTSD · False Allegation Culture · Exhaustion Correspondence · SWANK Long-Term Damage Dossier

To:

Kirsty Hornal
Cc: Sarah Newman, Glen Peache, Eric Wedge-Bull, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Rhiannon Hodgson, Rachel Pullen, Milena Abdula-Gomes, Laura Savage, Simon O'Meara, Philip Reid, Samira Issa, Nannette Nicholson, aaforbes@gov.tc, alsmith@gov.tc, Annabelle Kapoor

🩻 Ten Years of This, and You’re Still Calling It “Safeguarding”?

“It’s been ten years of this non-stop… many social workers who all have no reason to be bothering us for years on end…”

What you refer to as “protocol,” my lungs experience as injury.
This is not intervention—it is industrialised harassment with a laminated badge.

🗣 You Broke My Voice. You Diagnosed Me After.

“I have acquired PTSD and MUSCLE DYSPHONIA in addition to my already existing EOSINOPHILIC ASTHMA…”

The condition is cumulative.
The proof is biopsychological.
The damage is systemic—and the perpetrator is procedural.

🤡 Who Accuses a White Mother of Mixed Children of Racism?

“It’s also very suspicious to me that anyone would accuse me of child abuse and/or racism.”

No, it’s not just offensive.
It’s a tactic.
And it’s exactly what institutional racism looks like when disguised as safeguarding.

🏛 I No Longer Recognise the Crown as a Serious Entity.

“I’m not able to take the UK government seriously anymore…”

When the institutions begin to parody themselves, the refusal to comply is not rebellion—it’s discernment.

Polly Chromatic
Bureaucratically abused. Medically inflamed. Vocally dignified.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Damage Recorded.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “Adjustment Requested. Retaliation Received.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “Presented to the Crown. Ignored by the Council.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Evidence Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “I Told You in Every Format. You Ignored All of Them.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “Everyone Was Told. No One Complied.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

📩 THE EMAIL YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE

🧠 TRAUMA ADMINISTERED BY POLICY

⚠️ NOT A PLEA — A PERMANENT ENTRY

To:

🩻 Ten Years of This, and You’re Still Calling It “Safeguarding”?

🗣 You Broke My Voice. You Diagnosed Me After.

🤡 Who Accuses a White Mother of Mixed Children of Racism?

🏛 I No Longer Recognise the Crown as a Serious Entity.