⟡ “They Were Everywhere—Except in Your Report” ⟡
How Westminster Failed to Acknowledge Daily Public Life, Lawful Police Checks, and Verifiable Evidence of Wellbeing
Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/ADD-WELFARE-0625
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Addendum_WelfareCheckRebuttal_PoliceAndPublicContact.pdf
A formal rebuttal addressing the false claim that the children had not been seen since February 2025, substantiated by police logs, YouTube records, and community witnesses.
I. What Happened
Between April and June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed multiple police reports concerning professional misconduct. Officers attended the family home repeatedly. During one such welfare check in March, police spoke directly to Regal at the door while the family prepared to go out. No police visited on the weekend of 21–22 June as later claimed. Meanwhile, the family engaged in daily public activities, including skate sessions, forest walks, and Friday swims. Westminster social workers ignored this reality—and ignored the people who could verify it.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breach: No verification with named witnesses provided in writing by the mother
Factual misrepresentation: Claims that the children were "unseen" since February 2025 were demonstrably false
Negligence: Failure to review accessible, timestamped YouTube evidence of the children in public
Harassment by omission: Repeated refusal to acknowledge lawful and visible parenting activity
Misuse of statutory mechanisms: Escalation to coercive orders based on incorrect and unchecked data
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This rebuttal had to be logged because Westminster continues to weaponise absence-by-narrative. If truth is not acknowledged, then the lie is empowered. This particular lie—that the children were invisible, unverified, vanished—was used to justify radical intervention. But the children weren’t hiding. They were roller skating in Hyde Park. They were visible on YouTube. They were there. This pattern of erasure is not accidental. It is bureaucratic concealment. SWANK will not allow fabricated voids to become institutional facts.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 47 – Duty to investigate with accuracy and proportionality
Data Protection Act 2018 / GDPR – Use of false or unverified data to determine interventions
Article 8, ECHR – Interference with family life based on unsubstantiated and negligent assumptions
Public Sector Equality Duty – Disregard for documented disability accommodations and communications
V. SWANK’s Position
The children were present. They were thriving—despite illness, harassment, and repeated disruption. That Westminster failed to see them is not a comment on the children’s visibility. It is a comment on Westminster’s wilful blindness.
⟡ 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.