💠 SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue 💠
✒️ Filed: 2 August 2025 | Ref Code: WCC-PLACEMENT-CRIMINAL-FAILURE | PDF: 2025-08-02_SWANK_FosterPlacement_CriminalReassessmentRequest.pdf
🔹 Immediate Reassessment of Foster Placement
On the Subject of Criminal Risk, Mockery by Carers, and the Uncorrected Entrapment of American Children
I. What Happened
On 2 August 2025, Polly Chromatic issued an emergency criminal safeguarding notice to Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Westminster Children’s Services, demanding the immediate removal of all four U.S. citizen children from their foster placement.
The letter identified:
Named carers “Del” and “Shopna”
Social worker Kirsty Hornal
Three police reports already filed
Journal entries by Regal (age 16), evidencing psychological abuse, food and water deprivation, racial mockery, and emotional suppression
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This is not a complaint.
This is an evidentiary indictment of active state cruelty.
The letter documents:
The criminal endangerment of asthmatic children
Psychological violence and infantilisation (e.g., denying pencils, punishing expression)
Retaliatory placement design, meant not to protect but to punish
A culture of mockery and suppression directed at American children for daring to have a mother who speaks
It is a letter, yes — but it is also a mirror, angled toward every layer of authority that certified these carers and permitted this to unfold.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because Westminster has now crossed from negligence into theatre — a theatre of procedural cruelty where foster care is used as an instrument of punishment, and every safeguarding form becomes a prop in the state’s performance of concern.
Because when a child’s journal is ignored, when asthma becomes a battleground, and when meals are politicised, it is not care — it is abuse dressed in lanyards.
Because these are American citizens, forced to learn that disclosure leads to retaliation — and that silence is the only sanctioned form of survival.
IV. Violations Cited
Children Act 1989 – Sections 22, 47, and 31
ECHR Articles 3, 8, and 14
UNCRC Articles 12, 19, 24, 37
Equality Act 2010 – s.149 (Public Sector Equality Duty)
Potential criminal offences including:
Emotional abuse
Denial of necessities
Racially aggravated harassment
Retaliation against protected speech
V. SWANK’s Position
Let this letter stand — as notice, archive, and warning.
If no reassessment occurs, the Local Authority moves from institutional error into procedural collusion. And the world will watch — not because of Polly Chromatic’s grief, but because she wrote it all down.
SWANK will continue to write everything down.
Because there is no safeguarding in silence.
And there is no protection without truth.
⚖️ 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.