“If I Need to Write a Formal Letter, I’m Happy to Do So — Again.”
⟡ A Petition for Dignified Education After Years of Institutional Harassment
IN THE MATTER OF: Home education, safeguarding harassment, bureaucratic confusion, and the unfathomable art of asking nicely for the 47th time
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 7 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-HOWELL-PETITION-HARASSMENT
Court File Name: 2020-08-07_Court_Letter_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingHarassment_Petition
Summary: After three years of having her lawful homeschooling approval ignored and her family subjected to harassment, Polly Chromatic sends this respectful but legally direct petition to Edgar Howell. It documents repeated efforts to follow the law, an absurd trail of messages begging for written confirmation, and a mother’s crystal-clear willingness to comply — if only someone could tell her what the actual policy was. It is polite, factual, and unforgiving in its detail.
I. What Happened
In 2017, Polly contacted Mark Garland (Deputy Director of Education) to request homeschool approval.
She met with him in person and submitted her curriculum and credentials.
Garland approved the arrangement and later requested written curriculum submission (which she provided).
Despite this, Polly was:
Harassed repeatedly by the truancy officer Mr. Kennedy
Told by Social Development that she could lose her children
Subjected to repeated “investigations” without cause, reports, or lawful threshold
She lodged a complaint with the Complaints Commission in July 2020.
She received no documentation confirming her homeschooling status despite years of asking
This letter pleads for clarity, policy access, written confirmation, and an end to harassment.
II. What the Petition Establishes
That Polly made every attempt to follow the correct procedures as understood at the time
That she acted on direct instructions from Mark Garland, a public official
That she submitted the required documents but was never issued formal confirmation
That the Department of Social Development retaliated against her with threats and unsubstantiated safeguarding measures
That there is no published policy accessible to homeschoolers in the Turks and Caicos Islands
That Polly asked — repeatedly, civilly, exhaustively — to be told what the law required
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what it looks like to comply and still be punished. Because safeguarding does not mean “ignore paperwork and escalate arbitrarily.” Because when a mother submits a curriculum, follows every direction, and still faces removal threats, that is institutional abuse. Because this petition is the legal record of a state that will neither confirm nor deny its own policies — but will penalise you for not following them.
IV. Violations
Administrative neglect and delay
Failure to issue written policy or confirmation
Procedural retaliation via social services
Emotional harm to children through unnecessary safeguarding visits
Harassment via truancy threats after approval
Failure to comply with Children Ordinance procedural obligations
Abuse of authority by the Complaints Commission and Social Development office
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this document as Exhibit A in the prosecution of bureaucratic fiction. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That any mother who follows the direct instructions of a deputy director is legally compliant
That departments cannot claim “noncompliance” while withholding the rules
That no family should be harassed for homeschooling unless the state can prove harm — not confusion
That Edgar Howell’s silence is not a procedural outcome
That this letter, and the dozens that preceded it, represent more legal integrity than the state itself
⟡ 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.