“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 Parental Protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental Protection. Show all posts

You Got the Email. You Just Didn’t Like What It Said.


⟡ “We Left Because of Racism — And You Still Tried to Call It Non-Engagement” ⟡
An evidentiary email detailing the protective withdrawal of a child from a ballet programme due to repeated harm, cultural disrespect, and administrative cruelty — all sent directly to Westminster’s safeguarding officer before the retaliation began.

Filed: 24 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EDU-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-24_SWANK_Email_NKBallet_RacismComplaint_HonorWithdrawal_DisabilityAdjustment.pdf
Formal written notice sent to Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal and the North Kensington Ballet School, documenting Honor’s withdrawal following emotional distress, suspected racism, and teacher rotation. Cites parental disability, safeguarding rights, and medical boundaries.

I. What Happened

On 24 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a written statement to Westminster’s safeguarding team explaining the decision to withdraw her child, Honor, from the North Kensington Ballet programme.

The reasons:

  • Repeated, unexplained changes in teacher allocation

  • A pattern of cultural and racial discomfort, described plainly: “This is the second time racism has happened to my daughter at ballet.”

  • Ignoring of verbal trauma, despite clear documentation of the parent’s disability and written-only adjustment need

  • Continued expectation of in-person, verbal justification, despite harm

The result? The parent protected her child. And the institution would later try to frame that protection as risk.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That parental disability and trauma-related boundaries were known — and restated

  • That cultural disrespect and institutional insensitivity caused emotional harm

  • That the withdrawal was protective, lawful, and pre-emptive

  • That WCC had direct access to this timeline before issuing any safeguarding escalation

  • That engagement was never absent — it was simply not verbal, and not complicit

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because this is the email that proves it: withdrawal wasn’t avoidance — it was accountability. And the institution wasn’t uninformed — it was unbothered.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It is a timestamped record of child protection before the council intervened

  • It formally identifies racism in an educational context, reported to safeguarding

  • It proves that what came next — the PLO threat, the surveillance, the procedural lies — was never about the child

  • It was about punishing the parent for refusing to play a role in whitewashed compliance theatre

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 26: Racial harassment
    • Section 20: Refusal to adjust for verbal disability
    • Section 27: Victimisation

  • Children Act 1989 – Emotional distress caused by unmanaged service delivery

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Right to family life
    • Article 14: Right to non-discrimination in accessing public services

  • UNCRC & UNCRPD –
    • Article 3: Best interests of the child
    • Article 23: Disabled parent protection
    • Article 30: Cultural participation and protection from erasure

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t “refusal to engage.” It’s refusal to allow a child to be emotionally dismantled by a programme that treats race as inconvenient and trauma as unprofessional.

And this isn’t silence. It’s documented withdrawal — sent directly to the people who would later pretend it never arrived.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this file as a pre-safeguarding procedural exoneration, and a case study in what it means to protect your child before the state calls that a failure.

⟡ 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: