“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 Procedural Bad Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Procedural Bad Faith. Show all posts

Re: Westminster’s Mischaracterisation of SWANK Correspondence


⟡ THE STUDY OF IGNORANCE ⟡

Metadata

Filed: 26 August 2025
Reference: SWANK–FEEDBACK–2025
Filename: 2025-08-26_SWANK_Addendum_MischaracterisationOfCorrespondence.pdf
Summary: Westminster objects to the format of lawful correspondence instead of addressing the substance of its misconduct.

I. What Happened

Westminster City Council has lately adopted the curious position that correspondence sent under the auspices of SWANK London Ltd. may be disregarded. Officers complain that they “will not read” SWANK emails, preferring to shield themselves from documentation rather than respond to it.

II. What This Establishes

This position is, to borrow the language of jurisprudence, factually and procedurally flawed.

  • The correspondence is directed to Westminster Legal Services, whose duty is to engage with all parental communication.

  • Complaining about “format” is merely an evasion: a preference for ignorance over accountability.

  • By refusing to read correspondence, Westminster manufactures its own blindness, while the evidentiary record accumulates regardless.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the irony is too exquisite to pass unarchived. Westminster, in its eagerness to suppress reflection, has produced a perfect specimen of institutional absurdity:

  1. A public authority that complains about being studied, while continuing the very misconduct under study.

  2. A safeguarding body that prefers to whinge about email headers rather than safeguard children.

  3. A Local Authority that imagines it can opt out of scrutiny by closing its eyes to the mirror.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.22(3): Duty to safeguard and promote welfare breached by refusal to engage with parental concerns.

  • Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.12.73: Ignored by mischaracterising lawful correspondence as “misuse.”

  • Article 6 ECHR: Right to a fair hearing obstructed by refusal to engage with evidence.

  • Article 10 ECHR: Freedom of expression curtailed by disparaging lawful commentary.

V. SWANK’s Position

The SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue holds that Westminster’s protestations are not merely manifestly deficient — they are a kind of comic relief in an otherwise tragic record.

To complain about reflection is to confirm its necessity. To reject feedback is to demonstrate precisely why feedback must be given.

SWANK will, therefore, continue to log, analyse, and publish research findings. If Westminster chooses to remain illiterate in the face of evidence, that incapacity will be noted with due ceremony.

Concluding Reflection

It is hoped — though not expected — that one day these missives may awaken Westminster to the pointlessness of its egotistical behaviour, which serves only to harm children and discredit the Council itself. Until then, SWANK writes everything down.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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: