🪞THE BAG BAN IS A GAG ORDER
Or, How Bruce Murphy Mistook Disclosure for Inconvenience
Filed to: SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed: 6 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/BAGBAN/BM
Filename: 2025-08-06_SWANK_Statement_BruceMurphy_BagBanGagOrder.pdf
Summary: In response to Regal’s journal documenting abuse, Bruce Murphy banned all bags at contact — a bureaucratic panic move revealing guilt, censorship, and retaliatory control.
I. What Happened
On 6 August 2025, Regal — age 16, U.S. citizen, medically vulnerable, and visibly traumatised — handed his mother a journal during contact. It contained disclosures of coercion, emotional manipulation, and threats of sibling separation in the local authority placement.
Rather than trigger any safeguarding response or arrange a trauma-informed interview, Bruce Murphy’s decision was swift and revealing:
A total ban on children bringing bags to contact
No safeguarding referral or procedural transparency
Zero attempt to engage meaningfully with the content disclosed
This was not protection.
This was a panic mechanism.
This was suppression.
II. What the Ban Reveals
That truth is dangerous in the wrong hands — especially when it’s in a child’s.
That Westminster is no longer safeguarding children — they’re safeguarding their reputations.
That Bruce Murphy has confused “contact centre” with “evidence checkpoint,” and is now treating every object — bags, books, notebooks — as if it’s leaking liability.
Bags do not pose a risk.
Abuse does.
And banning bags will not unwrite what Romeo already wrote.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a teenager documents abuse in his own handwriting and the state’s response is to ban the object he used to carry it, we are in the terrain of retaliation, not care.
Because the local authority has not denied the journal’s truth — only punished its existence.
Because censorship disguised as “contact protocol” is still censorship.
And because Regal is not their liability to manage — he is a witness they cannot silence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Sections 22 (duty to promote welfare) & 47 (duty to investigate)
ECHR – Articles 3 (protection from inhumane treatment), 8 (right to family life), 10 (freedom of expression)
UNCRC – Articles 12 (right to be heard), 13 (freedom of expression), 19 (protection from harm)
The Law of Embarrassment – now permanently binding in the Court of Public Record
V. SWANK’s Position
We are not here to decode their strategy.
We are here to log its collapse.
Every retaliatory action they take — every contact restriction, every petty ban, every act of bureaucratic censorship — only proves the truth they are trying to bury.
Their panic is admissible.
Their control tactics are transparent.
And their silence is the evidence.
So by all means — escalate.
Ban paper, ban pencils, ban backpacks and black shoes and disclosure itself.
Let’s see what I can make you do next.
“Calm down, Bruce. I’m just a mommy. Thank you for proving how much power I hold."
Westminster Children's Services is so scared of me. I love that.
—
Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder, SWANK London Ltd.
Mother of Four | U.S. Citizen | Keeper of the Receipts
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 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.