“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 asthma risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asthma risk. Show all posts

In Re: Regal’s Journal and the Statutory Fiction of Safe Foster Care


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
The Report They Never Wanted Filed
The Regal Entry: In Re Criminal Neglect Disguised as Foster Care

Filed: 2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CRIMELOG-0825-DEL
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_CrimeLog_FosterNeglect_DelPoliceReport.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A formal police report documenting food deprivation, asthma risk, and racialised treatment of a 10-year-old U.S. citizen in state care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 2 August 2025, a police report was filed by Polly Chromatic on behalf of her 10-year-old son, Kingdom, documenting criminal neglect and discriminatory abuse in a Westminster-commissioned foster placement.

According to a handwritten journal entry authored by Regal and recovered during supervised contact, his brother was explicitly told "you can’t eat because you’re 10." The journal further describes a regime of arbitrary restrictions:
– No water bottles upstairs
– No pencils upstairs
– Mocking comments tied to his American identity

Kingdom suffers from eosinophilic asthma, a chronic and medically serious condition. These restrictions jeopardised his health, emotional wellbeing, and autonomy. His mother reported this treatment as criminal neglect, compounded by disability discrimination and xenophobic verbal abuse.

The report was submitted under police reference TAA-38016-25-0101-IR.

II. WHAT THE POLICE REPORT ESTABLISHES

This is not a hypothetical. It is not an allegation dressed in fury.
It is a filed, timestamped, and jurisdictionally sound police report alleging:

  • Medical negligence through hydration denial

  • Psychological abuse via infantilising rules

  • Racial and national discrimination toward a Black American boy

  • Safeguarding failure in a local authority-commissioned foster home

  • Documented emotional harm recovered in the child's own handwriting

Regal was not acting out — he was documenting. And now, so are we.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because no foster carer should tell a child when they can eat based on their age.
Because asthma is not a disciplinary tool.
Because cruelty delivered in a soft voice is still cruelty.
Because the child wrote it down — and the mother filed it — and we archive it.

This isn’t just parenting interference. It is criminal interference in a child’s health, development, and liberty.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 1(3)(b), 17, and 47: Welfare neglect and child protection failure

  • Children and Families Act 2014, s.19 – Violation of wellbeing duty

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 12, 13, 19 – Best interests, right to be heard, expression, and protection from harm

  • ECHR Article 8 – Violation of private and family life

  • Equality Act 2010, s.6 and s.20 – Discrimination on grounds of disability

  • Criminal Law – Emotional abuse, neglect, and racial hostility

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This report has now been entered into the SWANK CrimeLog.

We do not merely document harm — we criminalise it, we narrate it, and we dare it to survive scrutiny.

Westminster placed this child.
A foster carer enforced deprivation.
The state concealed it — and a mother reported it.
Now we preserve it.

This is not safeguarding.
This is a cover-up wearing lanyards.

Filed with institutional disgust and permanent archival scorn,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
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:

In Re: The Upstairs Pencil Ban – Power, Surveillance, and Procedural Absurdity


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Velvet Register of Procedural Misuse and Dignity Theft

No Pencils Upstairs

In Re: Restriction as Routine – Regal’s Observations on Foster Control

📁 Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-ROMEOCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_Journal_FosterControlSummary.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A child’s handwritten inventory of institutional restriction, deprivation, and power misuse in foster care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — a segment titled “Foster Talk” — was authored by Regal, age 16, in the quiet of restriction.

It details a list of controlling and, in some cases, developmentally harmful prohibitions placed on him and his siblings, including:

  • Telling Kingdom (age 10) that he can’t eat because he’s 10

  • Not allowing them to bring their water bottles upstairs

  • Not allowing them to bring pencils upstairs

  • Being told to “be respectful” to siblings without cause

  • Ambiguous bathroom restrictions (“above the upstairs bathroom rule”)

Each line is quietly devastating — a record of being watched, silenced, denied, and patronised.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

These aren't just odd household quirks. They are institutional symptoms:

  • Nutritional Humiliation: Withholding food based on age isn't child development — it's mockery in procedural form.

  • Hydration Restriction: Dangerous for children with asthma, particularly those with eosinophilic asthma (as all four siblings are diagnosed).

  • Stationery Suppression: Banning pencils upstairs violates educational dignity and emotional expression.

  • Passive Discipline Language: “Being respectful to siblings” — weaponised ambiguity used to pre-frame children as disobedient.

  • Toilet Surveillance Culture: The bathroom reference, vague but repeated across multiple journal entries, signals privacy erosion and bodily control.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because this entry was never intended for legal scrutiny — which makes it all the more damning.

It is unfiltered, unprompted, and uncoached.

This is how Regal has begun to interpret “care”: a regime of “don’ts,” of power without explanation, of needs ignored, rights denied, and voice erased.

In a system where journaling is banned and pencils are contraband, the very existence of this page is resistance.

We logged it because someone must.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22C – Inappropriate and developmentally unsafe placement

  • ECHR Articles 3, 8, 14 – Degrading treatment, interference with private life, discrimination on the basis of disability and nationality

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 17, 31 – Failure to respect child voice, education, and recreation rights

  • Health & Safety Standards – Failure to meet basic hydration and asthma-management responsibilities

  • Equality Act 2010 – s.20–21 – Indirect discrimination through provision of services

V. SWANK’S POSITION

You cannot teach “respect” by denying dignity.
You cannot foster trust while rationing water and pencils.
You cannot call this child protection.

This document is hereby archived under the Regal Journal Evidentiary Series and will be submitted to the Family Court, CAFCASS, and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Disability and Arbitrary Detention.

Every line is evidence.
Every stroke of Regal’s pen is a legal act of survival.

Filed in legal reverence and procedural revolt,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
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:

In Re: The Prohibition of Pencils – A Child Welfare Regime in Miniature


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Dispatch – Journal Evidence Series, Vol. VI

The House of Don’t

In Re: Surveillance Parenting, Arbitrary Rules, and Procedural Cruelty Disguised as Routine

Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825-RULESINSURRECTION
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_FosterRules_ArbitraryAndRisky.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten “rules” list revealing domestic micro-authoritarianism in a foster placement managing asthmatic children.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — titled simply “Rules” — was written by a child under foster placement as a record of the arbitrary regulations imposed on them. It includes the following:

  • “Don’t jump on trampoline when it’s wet”

  • “Don’t touch anyone on trampoline”

  • “3 or more people can’t be on the trampoline”

  • “Don’t use upstairs bathroom”

  • “Don’t go downstairs for food”

  • “No playing with other people when sick”

  • “Come home”

  • “Go to ur room at 8”

  • “No pencils in ur room”

  • “Don’t bring takeaway back home”

At first glance, it reads like an exaggerated boarding school checklist. But each rule reveals not structure — but restriction.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

Each entry reflects a concerning substitution of care with compliance:

  • Arbitrary Environmental Control: “Don’t use upstairs bathroom” and “Go to your room at 8” undermine dignity and autonomy.

  • Medical Mismanagement: “No playing with other people when sick” lacks medical rationale and promotes exclusion, not care.

  • Nutritional Policing: “Don’t bring takeaway back home” restricts food access, a disturbing echo in an asthma-vulnerable household.

  • Stationery Ban: “No pencils in your room” deprives children of expression, education, and emotional processing.

  • Surveillance Culture: Restrictions on trampoline use, time, space, and food imply behavioural control over developmental care.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because children do not make up rules like this.
They write them down to remember them — and because they are afraid of breaking them.

This is not a safeguarding plan.
This is micro-control under the guise of care.

The ban on pencils and takeaway food is not accidental.
It is ideological: designed to suppress, isolate, and diminish.

We logged it because no child in care should ever feel this tracked, this punished, this muted.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 22 – Inappropriate placement rules that undermine developmental needs

  • ECHR Article 8 – Interference with private life and autonomy

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 31 – Suppression of self-expression, recreation, and voice

  • Equality Act 2010 – Potential indirect disability discrimination (nutrition and asthma management)

  • Trauma-Informed Safeguarding Standards – Replaced with control-based compliance frameworks

V. SWANK’S POSITION

The rule “no pencils in your room” is the most honest phrase in this entire care plan.

It tells us everything:
That writing, expressing, learning, and journaling — the very tools of recovery — are seen as subversive.

This document is now logged in the Regal Journal Series as Exhibit VI, and cross-referenced with asthma-related claims, ECHR filings, and placement oversight misconduct.

You cannot foster dignity by banning pencils.

You cannot call it care when it is clearly control.

Filed in forensic disgust and legal precision,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
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:

Chromatic v The Custodians of Cancelled Care: On the Airborne Neglect of Medically Vulnerable Children


🌬️ THE AIR THEY DARE TO BLOCK

On the Mandatory Asthma Appointments They Must Honour, or Be Liable for Breach of Safeguarding and Breath

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 1 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/MEDICAL/ASTHMA-RISK/01
PDF Filename: 2025-07-01_Letter_MedicalAsthmaAppointmentsNotificationv1.pdf
Summary: A formal demand for respiratory compliance, directed to Westminster’s safeguarding machinery, naming the risk, the rights, and the appointments they dare not miss.

I. What Happened

In the aftermath of an unlawful child removal and amidst a crescendo of criminal referrals, a mother filed a simple letterto the local authority.

It was not a request.
It was a calendar-shaped liability trigger.

This letter, submitted on 1 July 2025, formally notified Westminster Children’s Services that each of the four children removed under the EPO of 23 June 2025 had pre-scheduled NHS asthma appointments — all of which remained legally and clinically mandatory.

Failure to attend would not just be negligent.
It would be documented medical harm.

II. What the Letter Establishes

This is not a logistical memo.
This is evidentiary pre-emption.

It establishes:

  • Legal notice of medical risk, grounded in confirmed asthma diagnoses

  • Parental authority and clinical rights under the Children Act 1989

  • Procedural warning against unauthorized cancellation or interference

  • Archival positioning for future accountability if harm occurs

  • A deadline — with date, case number, and SWANK signature

In short: this letter is what real safeguarding looks like.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if Westminster dares to claim medical concern while ignoring scheduled appointments,
If they obstruct asthma care for children already harmed by sewage exposure,
If they pretend to protect while refusing to transport,
If they ignore respiratory calendars because the mother dared to sue —
Then they are not a public authority.

They are a procedural hazard with a badge.

This letter is logged because every cancelled breath will now be counted.

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 & 22 – Duty to promote health and consult parental authority

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination by failure to accommodate medical needs

  • ECHR, Article 8 – Interference with medical and family life

  • Safeguarding Standards – Risk of foreseeable medical neglect

  • Common Law Duty of Care – Clear breach through omission or obstruction

V. SWANK’s Position

You do not remove children under false pretense, ignore medical diagnoses, and then expect silence.
This document is not a scheduling aid — it is a pre-litigation artefact.

Let the record show:

The mother notified.
The calendar was served.
The liability was fixed.
And now, the air they breathe is legally protected.

⚖️ 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:

Chromatic v Westminster: On the Erasure of Childhood in the Name of Process


⟡ THE CATALOGUE OF ERRORS ⟡

A Referenced Index of Institutional Contempt Disguised as Care

Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ADDENDUM-CATALOGUE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_Addendum_WestminsterCatalogueOfErrors.pdf
A formal evidentiary addendum cataloguing Westminster's procedural sabotage, safeguarding misuse, and contact obstruction following the 23 June 2025 removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services removed four U.S. citizen children from their family home under a disputed Emergency Protection Order. Since that date, the children have been isolated from all family, friends, belongings, routines, cultural life, and communication channels.

Medical appointments were cancelled. Their iPads and iPhone were withheld. Their asthma care plan disappeared. The letters they wrote to their mother were never delivered. No address was provided for her to write back. Even the food they eat has been changed.

Their joy — once found in skating, reading, bike rides, and shared meals — has been replaced by silence, surveillance, and institutional ambiguity.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The EPO was executed without transparency, disclosure, or diplomatic consultation.

  • The children were immediately cut off from every known stabilising anchor in their lives.

  • All four children have chronic asthma; all four have suffered serious attacks before. Their care plan has not been shared.

  • Their medical appointments at Hammersmith — the only remaining point of familiarity — were cancelled without notice.

  • The mother was excluded from all decisions relating to placement, health, and communication.

  • Contact has been gatekept, delayed, and conditionally offered, in clear violation of safeguarding standards.

  • Westminster has failed to respond to multiple written requests and complaints.

This is not contact planning. This is emotional embargo.
This is not safeguarding. This is strategic severance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no local authority should be allowed to erase a child’s life overnight.
Because skating and laughter are not risk factors.
Because asthma medication is not optional.

SWANK logged this because retaliation masquerading as child protection must be exposed for what it is — a performance of care that relies on silence, severance, and selective paperwork.

This is not the first time Westminster has acted outside law and ethics.
It is simply the first time someone has logged every line of it.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 10, 17, 22, and 47

  • Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR – Articles 3 (inhuman treatment), 6 (fair process), 8 (family life)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate PTSD and disability-based communication rights

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Violation of family contact, cultural continuity, emotional stability, and medical access

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child protection. It was clinical abandonment, masked in paperwork.
This wasn’t intervention. It was retribution.

We do not accept the institutional rewriting of safe family life into a risk narrative.
We do not accept the sudden rupture of routine, joy, or medicine.
We do not accept silence as policy.

We document what others dismiss.
And we preserve what they redact.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

The Donkeys Are Not My Waste Management Strategy

 🗑 SWANK Dispatch: I Live in a House, Not a Hurricane Casualty — Pick Up My Trash

🗓️ 16 July 2020

Filed Under: waste management failure, asthma accommodation, basic services denied, infrastructure neglect, environmental injustice, public health risk, municipal inaction, disability rights

“We live in the brown houses.
We are not ruins. We are residents.
Please pick up the trash.”
— A Mother with Eosinophilic Asthma and Zero Municipal Support

This polite but pointed letter from Polly Chromatic to Mr. Kendrick Neely, head of Environmental Health in Providenciales, is more than a waste collection request — it is an exposure of municipal failure to serve high-risk residents in the aftermath of hurricane damage.

🧾 I. The Situation, Summarised

  • Polly lives on Palm Grove, Grand Turk

  • Trash trucks pass nearby, but never drive down her road

  • She has no car — she bikes with four children

  • The other houses were destroyed in a hurricane, but hers is inhabited

  • She has severe eosinophilic asthma, making physical strain and waste exposure dangerous

  • She recycles most waste — but needs basic pickup services for remaining trash

  • Wild donkeys are tearing into the uncollected trash, creating public health and environmental hazards

🚨 II. She Asks for One Simple Thing:

“Please tell me what day and time I should expect them so I can put my trash out.”

Because she’s not trying to complain.
She’s trying to participate.
But the state has already decided her street doesn’t count — and her lungs are left to pay the price.


No comments:

You Broke the Lockdown, Then Blamed My Compost Toilet

 🏡 SWANK Dispatch: Pandemic Protocols Are Not Optional—Even for the State

🗓️ 26 March 2020

Filed Under: covid regulation breach, emergency powers violation, unauthorised home entry, high-risk health exposure, environmental complaint, disrespectful visit, asthma risk ignored, government misconduct

“We were in the middle of eating lunch during a pandemic.
You entered anyway.
Unmasked. Uninvited. Unjustified.”
— A Mother Filing a COVID-Era Environmental Complaint

This letter from Polly Chromatic to Mr. Kendrick Neely at the Environmental Health Department is a formally composed yet seething account of a government visit that violated the law, her body, and her family’s safety.

The visit, conducted by social workers, was unannounced and intrusive — taking place on the very day the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force.

⚖️ I. The Regulations Say: Stay Out

According to law:

  • Only essential workers could leave home

  • Social distancing was required

  • Visits had to be limited to urgent, essential duties

  • ID had to be shown

  • No entry to private homes was permitted except by health officers under lawful process

None of these conditions were met.

Instead:

  • Two unmasked women entered her home

  • They stood less than six feet from her and her children

  • They arrived while the family was eating, maximising viral exposure

  • They ignored her explicit verbal refusal

🌡️ II. What Was at Stake

• Polly is clinically vulnerable with severe asthma
• Her home was the only controlled airspace she had
• She was trying to protect four small children during a global health crisis
• The state showed up anyway — and treated her caution as defiance

“They are supposed to be protecting my children.
Instead, they put them at risk.”

🌍 III. The Department’s Own Mission Statement

The Environmental Health Department claims it is devoted to:

“assess, maintain, and improve the health and safety of the environment and residents.”

So why was Polly left to enforce public health law alone, against government staff?


No comments:

If You Want Peace, Don’t Weaponise Airbnb and Bad Manners

 🧱 SWANK Dispatch: The Fence, the Eavesdrop, and the Never-Ending Inquiry

🗓️ 13 July 2020

Filed Under: fabricated reports, eavesdropping neighbours, institutional stagnation, asthma risk, privacy violations, homeschool disruption, faux concern, gendered miscommunication

“How long must a woman endure investigation for surviving a neighbour’s tantrum?”
— The Mother Who Was Threatened for Disliking a Fence

Dear Swank Reader,

The 2020 lockdowns gave many a taste of constrained freedom. For some of us, the cage came with inspectors, neighbours who throw tantrums, and a year-long child welfare investigation based on a comment about a wall.

On the 13th of July, 2020, I—Polly Chromatic, still of Palm Grove, still under siege—responded in writing to Ashley Adams-Forbes, whose child had only just been born, while mine had been targeted repeatedly under the pretence of “concern.”

Let us examine what social services in Providenciales found so shocking:
• That I dislike being surveilled by neighbours
• That I object to assault and verbal threats in front of my children
• That I homeschool and compost
• That I requested Covid precautions due to eosinophilic asthma

Apparently, all of this warranted ongoing scrutiny. Meanwhile, the neighbour who ripped down my sign, threatened violence, and made up false vaccination reports was free to continue with Airbnb hosting and public slander.

🚩 I. The Complaint Was the Consequence of Her Own Eavesdropping

She overheard me speaking with my mother about vaccine schedules and invented an entire safeguarding narrative.

What’s more interesting is that the only complaints ever come from her — only when she’s in residence. Her transitory guests were more polite, respectful, and communicative than she ever was.

💡 II. Social Work, But Make It Sexist

Despite being the children’s primary caregiver, educator, and intellectual guardian, social workers deliberately bypassed me and tried speaking to my husband instead — a man I openly stated is not a good communicator. How is that protective?

This was not miscommunication. It was intentional gendered misdirection.

🦠 III. Disregard for My Medical Safety

In early 2020, amidst the growing global panic, social workers walked onto my property uninvited, despite my clear boundaries and my life-threatening condition. No masks. No caution. Only institutional entitlement.

One year of surveillance. Zero updates. No care for risk. No respect for the routine of a homeschooling mother of four. But they say it’s for protection.

📘 Final Words:

“I’m trying to educate my children and write books,” I said.
What I wanted was peace. What I received was intrusion.
If this is what “support” looks like, I’ll take solitude.


No comments:

You Withheld Breath and Called It Policy.


⟡ Assault on Asthma: When a Pharmacy Withholds Breath During Quarantine ⟡

Filed: 15 April 2021
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2021-PHARMACY-DENIAL
📎 Download PDF — 2021-04-15_SWANK_TCI_GraceBayPharmacy_MedicationDenial_COVIDRisk_AssaultOnAsthma.pdf

I. A Pandemic. A Quarantine. A Pharmacy That Withheld the Cure.

This document records a formal complaint against Grace Bay Pharmacy, filed after staff:

  • Refused to dispense life-sustaining asthma medication

  • Demanded in-person contact during a government-enforced quarantine

  • Allegedly retaliated when their demand was declined — despite written prescription, vulnerability status, and documented respiratory illness

What followed was not confusion. It was clinical negligence, framed in customer service language.

They didn’t withhold antibiotics.
They withheld breath.

II. The Context They Pretended Not to Understand

  • The patient was shielding

  • The medication was for Eosinophilic Asthma

  • The request was prepaid, written, and lawful

  • The refusal occurred during a respiratory pandemic

Instead of care, the pharmacy demanded:

“Come inside.”

As if the laws of infection and the laws of pharmacology were optional.

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because medication denial is not an inconvenience.
It is a form of procedural assault.

This complaint was submitted not for reconciliation, but for record.

It documents:

  • The refusal to deliver

  • The demand for unnecessary exposure

  • The pharmacist’s later attempt to minimise the incident as “confusion”

  • And the systemic lack of safeguarding for disabled, high-risk patients in crisis

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe pharmacists are above pandemic protocol.
We do not tolerate the minimisation of medical risk.
We do not consider retail politeness an excuse for institutional harm.

Let the record show:

  • The medication was needed

  • The prescription was valid

  • The request was lawful

  • The refusal — was filed

This was not a misunderstanding.
It was COVID-era negligence wrapped in pharmacy branding.




No comments:

This Wasn’t About Attendance. It Was About Control.


⟡ We Notified You of Medical Risk. You Sent an Attendance Warning. ⟡

Filed: 3 May 2022
Reference: SWANK/EDU/2022-DRAYTON-ANNABELLE
📎 Download PDF — 2022-05-03_SWANK_DraytonParkSchool_AttendanceLetter_Annabelle_MonitoringPretext.pdf

I. The Reply to Illness Was Surveillance

This letter from Drayton Park Primary School is many things:

  • Formatted with courtesy

  • Drenched in policy language

  • Seemingly benign

But it is, in fact, a procedural smokescreen — sent in response not to neglect or truancy, but to a parent’s prior disclosures of documented medical vulnerability.

You raised a health alert.
They raised a spreadsheet.

II. What the Letter Does (and Doesn’t) Say

It references:

  • Attendance thresholds

  • Code H

  • Authorised absences

It does not reference:

  • Medical conditions

  • Disability risk

  • The child’s asthma status

  • Prior communications

It is, as ever, the standard reply to complexity: flatten it into a metric.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because attendance letters are no longer neutral.
Because they now function as pre-safeguarding positioning tools, often sent after parents disclose medical concern or lawful refusal of in-person contact.

Because when you read enough of them, they all start to whisper:

We’re watching — but we won’t acknowledge what we see.

This is not just paperwork. It is soft jurisdictional threat, typeset in school stationery.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept attendance enforcement as a proxy for procedural intimidation.
We do not consider polite formatting to be protection.
We do not confuse concern for compliance.

Let the record show:

  • The child was medically vulnerable

  • The absences were lawful

  • The tone was disciplinary

  • And the letter — was archived




No comments: