⟡ “They Took the Children on June 23rd. I Filed a Subject Access Request on June 24th. Now They Want a Utility Bill.” ⟡
This Wasn’t About Verification. It Was About Delay — Because the Archive Asked for the Truth.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/SAR-REMOVAL-INQUIRY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_Westminster_SubjectAccess_RemovalRecords.pdf
Formal subject access request filed with Westminster City Council for disclosure of all documents, decisions, and communications regarding the removal of four U.S. citizen children from a disabled parent on 23 June 2025.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Westminster City Council following the emergency removal of her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — on 23 June. The request demanded disclosure of all emails, meeting minutes, officer names, risk assessments, police coordination, and post-event logs related to the action. The SAR was filed in writing, citing public interest, legal action, and international consular involvement.
Westminster responded with standard ID protocols and a disclaimer that the request will not be processed under FOIA 2000, despite containing matters of public administration. The file was reclassified as a DPA 2018 request — delaying statutory timelines until full ID and address verification is received.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Full request for documentation surrounding a child removal event was formally filed
Westminster reclassified the request to avoid FOIA transparency requirements
The council cited ID protocols despite known disability, legal status, and public interest
No internal timeline was confirmed, and the burden of proof was returned to the victim
The SAR now functions not only as a request — but as evidence of institutional evasion
This wasn’t a transparency mechanism. It was a bureaucracy loop dressed in GDPR language.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the archive asks for receipts, the council reaches for red tape.
Because safeguarding actions can’t be secret while being funded publicly and protected institutionally.
Because “your case is active” is not a reason to withhold — it’s a reason to disclose immediately.
Because no parent should have to chase paperwork after losing children to an invisible order.
Because SWANK doesn’t just wait. It files. Logs. Publishes. Publicly.
IV. Violations
Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–50 – Delay in fulfilling SAR without clarification or justified exemption
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 1(1) – Improper rejection of public interest content under SAR pretext
Article 15 GDPR – Right of access obstructed by reclassification tactics
UNCRPD Article 13 – Barriers imposed on disabled litigant attempting to access institutional records
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Access to family-related documentation denied post-removal
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t about safeguarding. It was about shielding institutional actors from lawful scrutiny.
This wasn’t document control. It was information delay weaponised against a disabled parent.
This wasn’t good governance. It was procedural insulation — and we filed it.
SWANK hereby archives this Subject Access Request not just as a demand — but as evidence of public body resistance to disclosure after unlawful child removal.
They will ask for proof of ID.
We will keep the proof of harm.
⟡ 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.