When the Archive Asks Geneva a Question
Re: Procedural Retaliation, Disabling Harassment, and the Velvet Rebuttal That Went to the United Nations
Metadata
Filed: 9 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-INTL-0711-UNSRPD
Document Title: 2025-07-9_Submission_UNSRPD_DisabilityRetaliation_RemovalOfAccommodations
Summary: A formal complaint has been submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, detailing systemic refusal of accommodations and retaliatory child removal by U.K. authorities against Polly Chromatic.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic, a disabled U.S. citizen mother of four, formally submitted a complaint to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The complaint outlines a precise chronology of:
Denied written communication despite diagnosed vocal and respiratory disabilities
False accusations of mental illness when written accommodation was lawfully requested
Cancellation of vital asthma care
Disruption of medical routines and home education for four disabled U.S. citizen children
Retaliatory use of an Emergency Protection Order following the filing of a civil claim and a criminal referral
Two of the children were born in the Turks and Caicos Islands. All four are dual U.S.-U.K. citizens and documented with U.S. passports.
II. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this isn’t a safeguarding case.
It’s a disability discrimination case weaponised through child removal.
Westminster Children’s Services used:
Respiratory impairment as a justification for escalating surveillance
Voice limitations as a reason to reject communication
Civil litigation and lawful filings as a basis for seizure
It was not support. It was punishment.
And it has now been entered into the United Nations disability archive.
III. What the Complaint Establishes
That the U.K. failed to uphold reasonable accommodations under domestic and international law
That safeguarding mechanisms were used to retaliate against a disabled parent who filed claims
That the removal of Regal, Prerogative, Heir, and Kingdom constitutes a breach of:
Article 5 (Non-discrimination)
Article 9 (Accessibility)
Article 16 (Freedom from abuse)
Article 23 (Respect for family)
Article 25 (Health) of the CRPD
And that the velvet archive is watching. And filing. And sending copies to Geneva.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This submission marks the moment when the case of a disabled mother and her four unlawfully removed children left the borough and entered the international record.
SWANK London Ltd. does not simply blog grievances.
It crafts legal dispatches that cross oceans.
The mother was not chaotic — she was correct.
The communication wasn’t disorganised — it was denied.
And the retaliation is no longer local — it is now documented in Geneva.
⟡ 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.