“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 UN Special Procedures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Special Procedures. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster City Council: Audit of CSA Oversight, Safeguarding Misconduct, and Retaliatory Child Removal


SWANK AUDIT DEMAND

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Filed: 19 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-AUDIT-WCC-CSA
Filename: 2025-08-19_SWANK_Audit_WestminsterCSA.pdf
Summary: Audit Demand requiring Westminster City Council Children’s Services to disclose records, safeguarding data, and CSA-related oversight failures.

IN THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT

Case No: CXZSD45678
AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE – ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
AND IN THE COUNTY COURT – CIVIL CLAIM (N1)

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services unlawfully removed four U.S. citizen children from their mother under an Emergency Protection Order, triggered in immediate retaliation to a formal SWANK Audit request.

Westminster’s subsequent conduct — suppression of education, restriction of contact, and deliberate silencing of children — raises grave questions as to whether safeguarding powers are being exercised lawfully, or are being abused to protect the institution and its reputation.

II. What This Audit Demands

Pursuant to SWANK’s evidentiary mandate, Westminster City Council is hereby instructed to disclose the following:

  1. CSA Allegations & Outcomes
    – All recorded allegations of child sexual abuse within Westminster-commissioned placements (2015–2025).
    – Outcomes: substantiated, unsubstantiated, ongoing, referred to police, or withdrawn.

  2. Provider & Placement Oversight
    – Full list of foster agencies, residential placements, and care providers used 2015–2025.
    – Safeguarding audits, LADO referrals, and internal risk reports.

  3. Emergency Powers Use
    – Number of Emergency Protection Orders obtained 2015–2025.
    – Proportion upheld vs. discharged.
    – Cases where children were returned home after findings of procedural irregularity.

  4. Section 20 Agreements
    – Instances where children were accommodated without written consent.
    – Audit findings relating to compliance with statutory guidance.

  5. Data Protection & Confidentiality Breaches
    – All ICO-reportable data breaches involving children in care (2015–2025).
    – Internal investigations into unlawful data sharing or misuse of disability disclosures.

  6. Staff Misconduct & Disciplinary Records
    – Number of Westminster staff disciplined for misconduct relating to safeguarding decisions.
    – Number referred to Social Work England.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding law cannot be weaponised as a shield for institutional reputation.
Because children’s welfare cannot be traded for bureaucratic control.
Because allegations of child sexual abuse in Westminster’s jurisdiction have historical resonance and public interest weight far beyond one family.

IV. Violations Implicated

  • Children Act 1989 (Sections 10, 20, 31, 44)

  • Article 8 ECHR – Right to respect for family life

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 3, 12, 19, 28)

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Safeguarding data misuse

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination in safeguarding practice

V. SWANK’s Position

Until Westminster City Council complies with this Audit Demand, every safeguarding action it takes is tainted by opacity and suspicion.

The question is not only whether Westminster protects children — it is whether Westminster protects itself at the expense of children.

Failure to disclose shall be treated as a confession of institutional misconduct.

✒️ Issued by:

Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Applicant / Mother
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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: