“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 Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Procedural Discrimination. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Consular Complaint Over Language-Based Exclusion of Children’s Father


⟡ “They Sent a Court Notice in the Wrong Language — and Called That Inclusion.” ⟡
If You Can’t Read the System, You Don’t Get to Resist It. Welcome to Globalised Safeguarding.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/USAEMBASSY/CONSULAR-FAILURE-KREYOL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-23_SWANK_Letter_USAEmbassy_LanguageBarrier_ConsularBreach.pdf
Formal report to the U.S. Embassy concerning Westminster’s failure to provide court communication in Haitian Kreyòl to the children’s father.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal communication to U.S. consular authorities documenting a language-based procedural failure by Westminster Children’s Services. The father of four U.S. citizen children — who resides in Turks and Caicos and speaks Haitian Kreyòl — received a UK court-related message written entirely in English. The language barrier rendered him unable to understand, respond to, or participate in proceedings concerning the sudden removal of his children from the United Kingdom. No interpreter was provided. No follow-up occurred. The exclusion was total.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • A parent of record was contacted in a language he does not speak

  • No attempt was made to provide translation or accessible communication

  • The father was therefore procedurally excluded from safeguarding and care decisions

  • UK authorities had prior knowledge of his linguistic needs and ignored them

  • This occurred in the context of a retaliatory removal from the other parent

This was not communication. It was jurisdictional tokenism via SMS.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because parental rights are not conditional on fluency in the empire’s language.
Because international safeguarding cannot be reduced to a monolingual text thread.
Because translation is not an optional courtesy — it’s a legal requirement.
Because when a father is asked to participate in a hearing he cannot linguistically access, the court is not functioning. It’s posturing.
Because this was not a failure. It was design.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 – Denial of fair hearing and participation

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Separation from parents without full participation

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to remove communication barriers

  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No clear consular coordination with both U.S. parents

  • Children Act 1989 – Lack of lawful notice or involvement of both parents in decision-making

  • International Safeguarding Protocols – Noncompliance with linguistic inclusion obligations

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t notification. It was linguistic exclusion masquerading as outreach.
This wasn’t failure. It was a strategy of quiet omission.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was state-sponsored incoherence — imposed on a foreign father.

SWANK documents this not only as a consular red flag, but as a violation of legal dignity.
The archive will not treat silence as neutrality — or English as default.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

Formal Complaint Regarding Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain: Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting


🦚 Formal Complaint Regarding Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain: Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting

Filed under the solemn documentation of safeguarding malpractice, discriminatory negligence, and bureaucratic myth-making.

24 March 2025
To:
RBKC Children’s Services Complaints
Email: complaints@rbkc.gov.uk

CC:

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Mr Earl Bullhead and Ms Jane Mountain – Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting

🧾 Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with an increasingly familiar sense of disbelief — and a dwindling reserve of patience — that I submit this formal complaint concerning the conduct of Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain, social workers operating under the auspices of RBKC Children’s Services.

Their involvement in my family’s case has produced a regrettable cascade of:

  • Misrepresentation;

  • Procedural failure;

  • Discriminatory negligence.

The resulting harm has been not only administratively baffling but personally and medically injurious.

📜 1. Aggressive and Medically Harmful Interrogation of My Children

On or around 10 July 2023, Mr. Bullhead:

  • Questioned my sons, Prerogative and Kingdom,

  • Alone,

  • In public,

  • Without prior consent or contextual sensitivity.

The encounter:

  • Was described by my children as aggressive and emotionally destabilising;

  • Triggered asthma exacerbations, requiring at-home nebuliser intervention.

This breach of trauma-informed practice and disregard for medical wellbeing is indefensible.

📚 2. Factual Fiction in the Joint Assessment

The resulting joint assessment authored by Mr. Bullhead and Ms. Mountain asserts:

  • That I "yell at" my children;

  • That there exists a "pattern of conflict."

These assertions are:

  • Fictional;

  • Unsubstantiated;

  • Medically implausible.

The only "incident" cited:

  • A private phone call with my mother, involving no communication directed at my children.

This event was:

  • Misrepresented;

  • Elevated into an allegation of emotional harm without credible basis.

📜 3. A Curious Delay in Transparency

Despite finalisation of the assessment in July 2023, I did not receive a copy until October — a full three months later.

This obstructive delay impaired my ability to challenge inaccuracies, and allowed fiction to embed itself within professional records.

📚 4. Medical Disregard and Patterns of Discrimination

I have repeatedly documented:

  • Eosinophilic asthma;

  • Muscle tension dysphonia;

  • Severe stress vulnerabilities.

Despite this:

  • Written-only communication requests were ignored;

  • Medical risk was deliberately compounded by procedural choices.

There is also a discernible racialised pattern:

  • False referrals and racial harassment reports were handled with bureaucratic silence rather than investigation.

📜 5. Unprofessional Conduct and Evident Bias

The assessment reflects:

  • Narrative manipulation;

  • Omission of critical context;

  • A fixation on irrelevant personal details;

  • No objective evidence of neglect or abuse.

My children remain:

  • Thriving;

  • Secure;

  • Deeply bonded —
    despite RBKC’s best efforts to undermine that reality.

🩻 Requested Actions (i.e., Remedial Steps for Institutional Repair)

I respectfully request:

  1. A formal investigation into Mr. Bullhead’s conduct during the 10 July interview;

  2. A written explanation of the evidentiary basis for the allegations of emotional harm;

  3. Removal or correction of false and misleading statements in the July 2023 assessment;

  4. An explanation for the three-month disclosure delay;

  5. Written confirmation that all future communication will be conducted via email only, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010;

  6. A formal written apology to myself and my children for the distress caused;

  7. A review into racial and ableist biases within the handling of my case.

📬 Should RBKC Fail to Respond Adequately

Should an adequate response not be received, I will escalate this matter to:

  • The Local Government Ombudsman;

  • My Member of Parliament;

  • Legal counsel for proceedings under anti-discrimination law.

Further delay, deflection, or denial will be formally recorded as procedural noncompliance.

📜 Yours,

With constitutional clarity and recorded indignation,
Polly


No comments: