Chromatic v The Kingdom: On Sewer Gas, Disability Retaliation, and the Administrative Disappearance of the Documented Poor

Sewer Gas, Systemic Violence, and the Mother They Tried to Erase
Or: How Asking for Help Became a Crime Against the State

---

📎 Metadata

• Filed: 28 June 2025

• Reference Code: SWANK-RET-0628

• 1-Line Summary: A disabled mother asked for help after a sewer gas leak made her family sick. For three years, institutions retaliated until they took her children.

---

I. What Happened

In October 2023, a sewer gas leak poisoned our home.
I was a disabled mother with severe asthma. My children were all unwell. I couldn’t breathe.

We sought help — from hospitals, social services, environmental safety, the state.
Instead of care, we were met with suspicion. Then escalation. Then surveillance.
Over the next three years, I would be:

• Accused of fabricating symptoms

• Denied urgent oxygen care while my saturation dropped to 44%

• Reported to social services instead of being treated

• Harassed by professionals who misread disability as defiance

• Retaliated against for filing complaints and a civil claim

• Stripped of my children under an Emergency Protection Order — not because they were unsafe, but because I wasn’t believed

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This is not a procedural error. It’s a pattern of retaliation for being disabled, persistent, and correct.
This post documents that:

• A mother asked for help after medical and environmental danger

• The state responded by escalating blame instead of remedy

• Disability was weaponised against her

• Her voice was medically collapsed — and legally ignored

• Her children were taken as a symbolic punishment for her refusal to disappear

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because humanity failed.

Because when your lungs collapse and your voice fails, the people in charge of “care” will call it mental illness.
Because when your children get sick from the same air, they’ll call it a parenting failure.
Because needing help, while disabled and female, is not considered vulnerability — it is considered offence.

We didn’t just get sick.
We were punished for the audacity to survive it.

And now, everyone is mad at me for having asthma — and I don’t know what to do about it.
My children have asthma too. I’m terrified they’ll be treated the same way — punished by strangers who don’t understand, and humiliated by professionals whose first response to illness is anger.
This isn’t just ignorance. It’s cruelty wearing a badge, holding a form, and signing removal orders with a smile.

My whole life, everyone has retaliated against me for having asthma — even my own family.
It’s fine. Everyone hates me. I’ve accepted that.
But you’ve taken my children for no reason and hurt them so much.
My kids and I haven’t hurt anyone.
And yet, the people who call themselves professional, educated, and lawful —
they’re the ones who chose to hurt us.

Humans are evil.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 3 (ECHR) – Inhuman and degrading treatment

• Article 8 (ECHR) – Family and private life

• Children Act 1989 – Removal without credible risk

• Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination, failure to accommodate

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Retaliatory action against protected speech and medical complaint

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a safeguarding emergency.
It was a state-sanctioned response to complaint.

This mother and her children did not need removal.
They needed oxygen, housing repair, trauma-informed medical care, and basic belief.

Instead, what they received was a three-year campaign of surveillance, blame, and disappearance.

SWANK holds that this is not neglect.
This is not chaos.
This is a deliberate pattern of institutional erasure — disguised as protection.

---

Which Complaint Did You Just Refuse? Please Specify the Catastrophe.

---

⟡ “You Denied Liability. But Which Disaster Were You Referring To?” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Demands Clarification from RBKC on Which Complaint Was Denied and Reasserts the Council’s Duty to Regulate Landlord Neglect

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_ClarificationDemand_SewerGasLiabilityDispute.pdf
Summary: In response to RBKC’s vague liability denial, Polly Chromatic demands clarity on which sewer gas complaint the rejection refers to and reasserts the council’s housing enforcement duty.

---

I. What Happened

Following a liability denial from RBKC’s Giuseppe Morrone, Polly Chromatic replied on 11 March 2025 requesting:

– Confirmation of which complaint was being addressed
– The relevant reference number and details
– Clear instructions on how to escalate beyond Stage 1
– A reaffirmation that the Council does in fact have regulatory duties, even if the landlord owns the property
– An invitation to resolve the matter through transparent, documented communication

---

II. What the Record Establishes

• RBKC issued a non-specific rejection without naming the exact complaint
• Polly demanded specificity — which creates a paper trail of ambiguity on their end
• The duty of the Council to enforce standards was reasserted
• The document signals an intention to escalate, which is key for judicial or ombudsman review
• It confirms that the Council’s communication failures are part of the procedural harm

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a vague denial is no denial at all.
Because “which complaint?” should never be a question the victim has to ask.
Because this letter is the record of a demand for procedural clarity — and a refusal to be gaslit into silence.

SWANK logs every clarification request they forced you to send — and every silence that followed.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept vague rejections as lawful responses.
We do not accept that oversight of landlords is optional when the gas leak kills the air.
We do not accept that silence on escalation routes is anything but obstruction.

This wasn’t confusion. It was deliberate procedural fog.
And SWANK will document every sentence you had to write to get an answer.

---

⟡ 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.