📎 SWANK Dispatch: “What Are We Worried About?” Apparently… Everything.
🗓️ 15 March 2024
Distributed the day after the conference. Noelle’s breath had still not returned.
Filed Under: child protection escalation, Section 47 theatre, mental health surveillance, homeschooling panic, father contact obsession, RBKC procedural mimicry, institutional redundancy, over-visit strategy, disability erased
“Children to be seen and deemed safe.”
By whom?
Against what metric?
And using what evidence of harm?”
— Polly Chromatic, subject of a plan written by people who haven’t met her
This Conference Outline Plan, distributed on 15 March 2024, outlines Westminster City Council’s official child protection response to... a mother who homeschools, writes too well, and breathes irregularly due to asthma.
Among the stated “worries”:
Mental health concerns raised vaguely by unnamed health professionals, neighbours, and hotel staff
No contact with the children’s father, despite no safeguarding concern related to him
Home education conducted without “professional oversight”
Children not regularly seen by professionals, despite their excellent health
📌 I. The Plan as Bureaucratic Performance
| Concern | Required Action | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Mental health questions | Polly must undergo assessment | “We’re uncomfortable with her tone.” |
| Homeschooling structure | Education team must inspect home | “We don’t control your teaching, so we must control your house.” |
| No father contact | Must provide contact details | “We’re building a network of informants.” |
| Children not seen by professionals | Mandatory social worker visits every 10 days | “Your success without us is suspicious.” |
🧠 II. Safety Goals or Surveillance Goals?
The “safety goals” are laughably generic:
“Children to be seen and deemed safe in the home”
“Polly to access support”
“Father to be contacted”
There is no evidence of harm, no incident outlined, and no grounding in actual safeguarding thresholds. What exists instead is institutional projection — an assumption that home education, articulate language, and medical documentation are signs of danger.
🧾 SWANK Commentary
When a document this vague
is used to justify state intrusion,
you are no longer operating
under child protection law.
You are rehearsing a role
called “concern.”
A role that requires
no evidence,
no logic,
and no familiarity
with the family in question.