“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 Unlawful Retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unlawful Retaliation. Show all posts

In the Matter of a Bicycle, a Tracker, and the System That Called It Isolation


🪞The Institutional Isolation Act

Regal v. The Reign of Overreach

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Filed Date: 14 July 2025
Reference Code: POS-A12-ISOLATIONRESTRICTION
Court File Name: 2025-07-14_Addendum_InstitutionalIsolationAndMisrepresentation.pdf
Summary: A statement of position contesting excessive restrictions, mischaracterised risk, and punitive confinement of four U.S. citizen children under Westminster's safeguarding regime.

I. What Happened

During a supervised contact session on 14 July 2025, Regal (16) stated plainly:

“It feels like prison.”

He wasn’t exaggerating. He also reported being removed from his siblings ten hours a day by a carer — an unsanctioned, isolating ritual never lawfully agreed to. Meanwhile, his younger brother Prince reported that he’s not allowed outside. Heir and Kingdom appeared dulled, flat, and drained of their usual spark.

Regal asked why he’s forbidden from using his iPhone. The answer? It has a location tracker, and the local authority fears Polly — the children’s mother — might “steal” her own children. This is a legal parent who has followed every rule, filed every document, and endured unspeakable cruelty. And now she's accused, without grounds, of imaginary sabotage.

When Regal asked to express his opinion — a basic legal right — Polly responded with lawful care. She clarified they were talking about his emotional wellbeing, not the court. Kirsty Hornal interrupted and ordered her not to “discuss the case.” Regal is nearly 17. Apparently, his thoughts are still contraband.

Meanwhile, Polly reminded her children they are always her priority — whether with her or not. She spoke of her lifelong dream to homeschool them — a dream interrupted by institutional overreach and punitive control masquerading as child welfare.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Regal is being removed for 10 hours daily, breaking sibling bonds and exhausting his routine without justification.

  2. The iPhone ban is based on a false narrative of threat and presumed criminality.

  3. Regal is being denied voice, information, and autonomy, despite being nearly of age.

  4. The conditions now imposed are far more isolating than anything Polly ever did.

  5. The conduct of Westminster violates law, dignity, and common sense.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because every system that claims to protect children must be forced to confront when it does the opposite.
Because Regal is not a prisoner. Because Prerogative deserves air. Because a mother’s patience is not a licence to abuse it.

And because someone must write down that “road safety training” is not a lawful excuse to confiscate liberty or erase parental rights.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(a) & s.22(4) – Wishes of the child and sibling bonds

  • ECHR, Article 8 – Right to private and family life

  • UNCRC, Articles 12–16 – Right to be heard, to express, to connect

  • Bromley’s Family Law (2021, p. 640) – “If the parents object to continued accommodation, the child must be returned.”

V. SWANK’s Position

The local authority has replaced educational liberty with state-engineered confinement, justified by fear, assumption, and retaliation. They have branded the lawful mother unlawful, and silenced the lawful voices of her children.

Polly Chromatic has followed every law. Westminster has followed none.

We hereby request:

  • The immediate reassessment of Regal’s enforced separation.

  • The lifting of unjustified device bans.

  • The reinstatement of the children’s rights to autonomy and voice.

  • A formal welfare review — this time, conducted lawfully.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ 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: