⟡ “You’ve Had the Files Longer Than I’ve Had the Risk.” ⟡
Assessment delayed. Evidence withheld. Disclosure requested — because they didn’t offer.
Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RECORDS-DISCLOSURE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_Disclosure_Westminster_SafeguardingAssessmentDelay.pdf
A formal email from Polly Chromatic to Westminster, RBKC, NHS professionals, and educational contacts requesting access to outstanding safeguarding records and documentation. The message identifies a persistent lack of disclosure, late communication, and institutional hesitation to share materials that were used to justify intervention — but never shared with the family.
I. What Happened
On 19 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request for all safeguarding assessments, documents, and outstanding records that had been referenced — but never provided. The request was sent to key figures across Children’s Services, education, and healthcare sectors, following weeks of evasion. The letter points out that an “assessment” cannot justify contact if it remains unseen, unexplained, or undisclosed.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Westminster initiated safeguarding escalation without providing corresponding documentation
References to assessments were made — but the assessments were never shared
The failure to disclose appears strategic, not accidental
Access to records is a legal right, not a courtesy
Institutional delay protected themselves, not the child
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because you cannot cite risk you refuse to define.
Because records that justify intrusion must also justify scrutiny.
Because the pattern is not delay — it’s concealment.
This wasn’t an administrative oversight.
It was procedural shielding — and now, it’s documented.
SWANK London Ltd. logged this request as part of a broader pattern of information control, evidentiary opacity, and legal evasion.
IV. Violations
❍ Data Protection Act 2018 – Failure to disclose personal safeguarding information
❍ Article 6 ECHR – Procedural unfairness in withholding evidence used in intervention
❍ Safeguarding Misconduct – Refusing to provide basis for concern
❍ Transparency Breach – Repeated delays in responding to formal information requests
❍ Professional Negligence – Failure to support claims with accessible documentation
V. SWANK’s Position
If there was an assessment, where is it?
If there was risk, why was it withheld?
If your actions were lawful, why are your records hidden?
This wasn’t disclosure.
It was institutional amnesia — until asked, on record, by name, in writing.
Polly Chromatic does not trust institutions that cite files they refuse to show.
The delay is logged.
The audit escalates.
The documents are coming —
because they were always ours to begin with.
⟡ 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.