⟡ They Called a Martial Arts Class a Safeguarding Concern — So She Called Their Bluff. ⟡
When the allegation is this weak, the rebuttal gets police cc’d.
Filed: 18 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-18_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_PLOFalseAllegation_RyuKaiPoliceDistribution.pdf
A formal PLO response dismissing Westminster’s false safeguarding claim related to a child’s martial arts class, copied to police, education staff, and healthcare professionals for transparency and institutional accountability.
I. What Happened
Westminster attempted to validate its PLO overreach with a retrospective, vague concern about a Ryūkai martial arts class.
No injury. No record. No contemporaneous documentation.
Just an invented red flag from a team running out of script.
The mother responded with written clarity — and institutional distribution.
Because if they were going to lie, she was going to publish.
II. What the Email Establishes
That the martial arts claim was fabricated long after the event
That no evidence or follow-up was recorded at the time
That the mother disputed the allegation in writing
That the response was cc’d to police, education professionals, and NHS actors to prevent internal erasure
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because if you're going to make up a concern, prepare for it to be dismantled — with readers.
Because retaliation wears many disguises, but “we’re worried about karate” is not a convincing one.
And because cc’ing the police isn’t dramatic — it’s necessary.
IV. Violations Identified
Retrospective False Allegation Introduction
Safeguarding Process Abuse
Procedural Manipulation of PLO Framework
Omission of Contextual Accuracy
Failure to Notify or Record Concern at Time of Event
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not about martial arts.
This was about narrative control.
When they couldn’t justify their actions, they weaponised hindsight.
When that failed, she weaponised the email.
And cc’d the police for good measure.
⟡ 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.