“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 Retaliatory Contagion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retaliatory Contagion. Show all posts

Chromatic v. Westminster: On Harassment Metastasising Beyond the Family


⟡ The Doctrine of Retaliatory Contagion ⟡

Filed: 4 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/RETALIATORY-CONTAGION
Download PDF: 2025-09-04_SWANK_Addendum_Friends.pdf
Summary: Westminster’s harassment metastasised into friends, neighbours, and professionals — contaminating community life.

I. What Happened

Westminster’s hostility extended beyond Polly Chromatic and her four children. Their harassment metastasised outward:

  • Friends and neighbours approached with suspicion.

  • Family members contacted unnecessarily, creating stigma.

  • Professionals pressured to adopt a distorted safeguarding lens.

This poisoned community relations, corroding the very networks children rely on for stability.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • Overreach of Authority: Social workers acted as if every acquaintance was theirs to intimidate.

  • Destruction of Trust: Community ties destabilised by suspicion.

  • Institutional Obsession: Fixation on control eclipsed care.

  • Retaliatory Pattern: Wider harassment coincided with lawful assertions of rights.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Safeguarding collapsed into harassment by contagion. The record proves that misconduct was not confined to the nuclear family but spread into the community, eroding social trust and amplifying retaliation.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Welfare undermined by dismantling networks of trust.

  • Articles 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14 ECHR – Degrading treatment, fair process obstructed, family/private life disrupted, free communication and association chilled, discriminatory conduct.

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 9, 12, 16 – Best interests, family unity, voices, and privacy denied.

  • UNCRPD Articles 4, 7, 22, 24 – Disabled parents and children denied protection and educational stability.

  • ICCPR Article 17 – Arbitrary interference with community and family life.

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Third-party data unlawfully processed.

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Harassment of wider networks breaches statutory prohibition.

  • Bromley, Family Law (15th ed., p.640): Safeguarding by coercion is void; contagion of harassment is procedural rot.

  • Amos, Human Rights Law (2022): Article 8 proportionality requires necessity and precision; harassment of friends is neither.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding.
This is contagion masquerading as care.

  • We do not accept harassment of community ties as lawful.

  • We reject fixation and obsession as safeguarding practice.

  • We will archive each ripple of retaliation until contagion is confessed.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And contagion deserves exposure.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.

⚖️ 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: