⟡ “If This Was Lawful, Show the Paperwork.” ⟡
A Freedom of Information Request, Because Secrets Are Not a Safeguarding Tool.
Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FOI/WESTMINSTER-REMOVAL-0623
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_FOI_Westminster_ChildrenRemoval_RecordsRequest.pdf
Formal FOI request demanding disclosure of all documentation surrounding the removal of four U.S. citizen children.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Westminster City Council following the sudden removal of her four U.S. citizen children from their home at approximately 1:37 PM. The removal was carried out without service, notice, representation, or visible legal authority. The FOI request demands production of all communications, risk assessments, court documents, and coordination records from Westminster Children’s Services and any affiliated police agencies involved between 17–24 June 2025. It specifically asks for identification of the individuals who approved, planned, or executed the act.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Four American children were taken without paperwork shown or served
No hearing was attended or accessed by their disabled mother
No agency has disclosed the internal basis for the action
Westminster has treated transparency as optional and process as private
This FOI request forces the record out from behind the curtain
This wasn’t a protective intervention. It was a procedural ambush buried in bureaucratic opacity.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because if there was a lawful reason — it would already be on the table.
Because transparency delayed is justice denied.
Because a removal without record is not safeguarding — it’s jurisdictional vandalism.
Because FOI isn’t just an administrative request. In this context, it’s a demand for institutional confession.
Because no child’s life should be altered in secret — and then left undocumented.
IV. Violations
Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Failure to proactively disclose significant public actions
Children Act 1989 – Absence of procedural protection in removal
Equality Act 2010 – Disability-based exclusion from participation
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Right to fair procedure and family life
UNCRC, Articles 9 and 12 – Removal without cause, consultation, or transparency
Common Law Duty of Candour – Evasion of responsibility through silence
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t just secrecy. It was institutional cowardice disguised as discretion.
This wasn’t a record. It was a paperless process built on tactical omission.
This wasn’t lawful. It was documentless power used against the voiceless.
SWANK demands full disclosure.
The archive doesn’t wait politely for injustice to explain itself — it serves notice that concealment will be published.
⟡ 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.