“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
Showing posts with label Westminster collusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westminster collusion. Show all posts

You Gave the Ombudsman the Evidence. The Council Gave You More Harassment.



⟡ “Submitted to the Ombudsman. Ignored by the Offenders.” ⟡

An evidence bundle provided to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), documenting RBKC’s role in retaliatory safeguarding abuse and procedural misconduct.

Filed: 10 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LGO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-10_SWANK_LGO_Submission_RBKC_SupportingEvidenceBundle.pdf
This archive captures the exact materials sent to the LGO in support of a formal complaint against RBKC, highlighting cross-institutional collusion, email evidence, and safeguarding escalation patterns.


I. What Happened

In early May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an official complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning:

  • Misuse of PLO protocols

  • Procedural ambush tactics

  • Failure to recognise disability accommodations

  • Coordinated efforts between RBKC and Westminster to bypass medical and legal safeguards

This file served as the accompanying supporting document package, containing referenced communications, disability declarations, and patterns of retaliatory action.


II. What the Record Establishes

  • That the LGO was provided with full visibility of misconduct

  • That RBKC’s safeguarding activity was already under complaint

  • That Polly Chromatic submitted a legally and medically supported claim

  • That silence or inaction following this submission amounts to procedural complicity


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because oversight bodies are only neutral until they ignore the oversight.
Because submission to the LGO isn’t just a request —
it’s a trigger point, and when ignored, becomes institutional evidence itself.
Because RBKC was already on notice.

And now the public is too.


IV. Violations

  • Failure to uphold due process in safeguarding application

  • Ignoring formal disability disclosure and legal protections

  • Breach of public body accountability under LGO review

  • Unlawful child welfare escalation after formal complaints

  • Ignoring patterns of documented retaliation


V. SWANK’s Position

When you give them the documents,
and they give you more retaliation,
you stop calling it oversight.

You start calling it state-aligned harm.

This was a submission to prevent that.
They chose to proceed anyway.


⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions