“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 SWANK testimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK testimony. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Barre: On Cultural Dissonance, Institutional Whiteness, and the Economics of Dignity



🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY

The Ballet School Withdrawal

Or, How Racism in Pink Tights Prompted an Exit Worth Archiving


Filed: 31 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-RACIALTRAUMA-CHILD-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-31_SWANK_Letter_NKBalletSchool_RacismAndRefund.pdf
One-Line Summary: After one ballet class ends in racial trauma for her daughter, Polly Chromatic requests a refund — and redefines elegance as accountability.


I. What Happened

On Halloween morning 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a deceptively simple email to N.K. Ballet School, titled simply: “Dear Claire.”

Her daughter Honor had attended a ballet class.
There had been a sudden change in teacher.
There had been racism.
There had been trauma.
And there had been no warning.

Polly’s response? Calm. Unflinching. Refund-ready.

“The first class that Honor attended at your school traumatised her due to the teacher’s racism.”

No exclamation points. No theatrics. Just the velvet blade of truth.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

In less than 150 words, the message clarifies the following:

  • That racial harm in cultural institutions begins early

  • That sudden transitions for young children — especially following trauma — must be managed with forewarning and care

  • That emotional safeguarding is not optional when a parent pays for your pedagogy

  • That refund requests are not transactional — they are a form of protest

This is not about tuition. It is about dignity misrepresented as a schedule adjustment.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because British politeness is often a costume for institutional racism — and ballet, as it turns out, has both.

Because Honor’s emotional safety was compromised in the name of technique.

Because the real choreography here is institutional avoidance:

  • Change the teacher

  • Skip the notice

  • Skip the accountability

  • Smile through the refund process

But Polly doesn't do pas de denial.


IV. Violations

  • Racial Discrimination in Education – Child subjected to racist conduct without protection

  • Safeguarding Negligence – Abrupt teaching change without parental notice

  • Emotional Mismanagement – Ignoring cultural trauma as a barrier to participation

  • Consumer Rights Breach – Services paid for under false pretences of safety and inclusion

  • Professional Evasion – Failure to acknowledge or address racial harm proactively


V. SWANK’s Position

We consider this message a landmark in low-volume rage — a clinic in restraint, clarity, and aesthetic objection.

Let the record show:
Polly Chromatic did not raise her voice. She raised her daughter.
And in doing so, she withdrew from yet another institution unfit for grace.

This wasn’t just about ballet. This was about the expectation that children of colour should perform while uncomfortable — and parents should pay for the privilege.

No refund can restore Honor’s trust. But the archive now holds the truth:
She danced once. She won’t return. And the silence is yours to choreograph.


⚖️ 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.

We Filed to the United Nations. Not as Victims — As Witnesses.



⟡ SWANK United Nations Shadow Report ⟡

“The United Kingdom Was Reported Under Three Treaties. By SWANK.”
Filed: 1 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/UN/SHADOW-REPORT/2025-06-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-01_SWANK_UNShadowReport_DisabilitySafeguarding_CRPD_CEDAW_CRC_Violations.pdf


I. This Is Not a Cry for Help. It Is an Evidentiary Intervention.

On 1 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal Shadow Report to the United Nations, addressed to multiple Special Rapporteurs under the following treaties:

  • CRPD – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

  • CRC – Convention on the Rights of the Child

This is not a lobbying document.
It is a factual indictment of the United Kingdom, supported by primary evidence, legal filings, safeguarding threats, disability adjustments, and post-litigative retaliation.

We did not file it as victims.
We filed it as archival witnesses to ongoing treaty violations.


II. What the Report Contains

This Shadow Report sets out:

  • Patterned safeguarding misuse against a disabled mother and her four children

  • Institutional silencing following lawful complaint, medical disclosure, and court filings

  • Retaliatory escalation via social work, housing, education, and NHS referral systems

  • The rebranding of medical harm as parenting risk

  • The deletion, alteration, and suppression of disability data across multiple agencies

It is the record of harm, restructured for international scrutiny.
It names people. It dates misconduct. It cites laws.

It is not their narrative.
It is the one they tried to erase — rewritten with jurisdictional clarity.


III. Why the Shadow Report Was Necessary

Because domestic complaints are contained.
Ombudsman pathways are engineered for delay.
And family court secrecy operates as a shield for procedural violence.

SWANK submitted this report because:

  • The Equality Act 2010 was not enforced

  • The Children Act 1989 was inverted

  • The Human Rights Act 1998 was ignored

  • And the safeguarding apparatus was used not to protect children — but to punish lawful resistance

We did not escalate for hope.
We escalated for documentation.


IV. SWANK’s Position

This report is not rhetorical.
It is forensic.

It exists so that:

  • The UN cannot say they were unaware

  • The UK cannot say this was a private grievance

  • And Westminster cannot say this was unsubstantiated

Let the record show:

We filed under three treaties.
The archive is now international.
The silence of the state will only deepen its indictment.


⟡ 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.