“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 bodycam evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bodycam evidence. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Clinic: On Filming Harassment, Respiratory Retaliation, and the Misuse of Safeguarding Referral



🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY

Episode 6: The Social Worker Show

Or, When Breathing Was an Inconvenience and Recording Was a Crime


Filed: 19 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-EVIDENCE-RECORDING-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-19_SWANK_Episode6_SocialWorkerShow_HospitalBodycamEvidence.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic submits bodycam evidence of hospital harassment — and is met not with apology, but with retaliation via social services.


I. What Happened

On 19 October 2024, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to Westminster officials (and their police collaborators) with a direct link to video footage she recorded at the hospital.

The message was not a complaint.
It was a broadcast — of truth, breath, and bureaucratic contempt.

“I wore a body cam to the hospital because they kept harassing me and this is what I recorded. After this they called social workers on me for no reason. They should be punished. Disgusting behaviour.”

It was titled:
“Episode 6: The Social Worker Show.”

A name more accurate than anything Ofsted has ever published.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Polly was being harassed by NHS staff while struggling to breathe

  • That her disability was neither acknowledged nor accommodated

  • That her act of self-protection — wearing a body cam — was treated as aggression

  • That shortly after recording, she was referred to social services without justification

  • That retaliation for documentation is now a core feature of British safeguarding

The logic: If you record mistreatment, you must be a danger to your children.
The reality: You were never supposed to survive with proof.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the safeguarding machine is allergic to footage.

Because when the victim brings evidence, the institution brings the removal order.

Because Polly Chromatic didn’t raise her voice — she raised a lens.

Because the footage she shared is not just about a nurse — it’s about an entire system allergic to accountability, offended by transparency, and threatened by the act of remembering.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3 ECHR – Harassment during medical crisis

  • Article 8 ECHR – Retaliatory referral for protected activity

  • Data Protection Breach – Use of bodycam recording as pretext for safeguarding action

  • Disability Discrimination (Equality Act 2010) – Reprisal for medically necessary recording

  • Safeguarding Misuse – Referral as punishment for asserting lawful rights


V. SWANK’s Position

We consider this email a manifesto of documentation: a mother, mid-crisis, turning surveillance into survival.

Let the record show:
Polly Chromatic recorded to protect herself.
She was punished for it.
Her respiratory disability was mocked, not mitigated.
And Westminster’s reaction wasn’t concern — it was escalation.

What they couldn’t hear, they ignored.
What they couldn’t refute, they criminalised.
What she filmed, they feared.


⚖️ 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.