Chromatic v Metropolitan Police: In the Matter of Unlawful Removal, Missing Orders, and Procedural Theatre

---

⟡ “No Order, No Justification, Just Screams” ⟡
A filmed removal. Five officers. Zero paperwork. A legal vacuum with blue epaulettes.

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOL/SF-REMOVAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Removal_MetPolice_UnlawfulExtraction.pdf
Video evidence and incident account of a child removal conducted without lawful authority, warrant, or safeguarding rationale.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025 at 1:30pm, five uniformed officers from the Metropolitan Police entered the family residence at London W2 6JL. They proceeded to remove all 4 children from their mother, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.), without presenting a court order, warrant, emergency protection order, or any written documentation whatsoever. The children were visibly distressed, begging not to be separated from their lawful parent.

The removal was filmed in full and is now publicly available via SWANK’s evidentiary archive:

🎥 Watch the removal video

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Procedural Breach: No lawful authority presented — no warrant, no emergency order, no Section 20 consent, and no legal threshold met for removal.

• Human Impact: Four broken-hearted children forcibly removed from their home, weeping and terrified, with no trauma-informed mitigation.

• Power Dynamics: Five armed agents of the state versus one disabled mother and her children, with no safeguarding professional present.

• Institutional Failure: A policing body acting extrajudicially, bypassing court authority, with no documentation or clinical oversight.

• What’s Not Acceptable: When the law is absent and uniforms are present, we are not in a democracy. We are in performance.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because child removal without legal basis is not rare — it is routine, and routinised. Because silence would imply consent, and SWANK does not consent to state overreach disguised as "concern."

Because the image of four children being dragged from their mother without paperwork should haunt every bureaucrat who signs off such conduct.

Because mothers are not meant to narrate their child’s abduction in legal prose. But if we must, it will be with velvet gloves and juridical knives.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989 – Section 44 (no EPO); Section 46 (no police protection threshold met); Section 20 (no consent)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Right to private and family life), Article 6 (Right to fair process)

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to consider disability accommodations; discriminatory enforcement

• PACE 1984 – Entry without warrant; no lawful justification under Part II

• UNCRC – Article 9 (Separation without judicial scrutiny); Article 3 (Best interests not paramount)

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not safeguarding. It was seizure.
This was not lawful enforcement. It was theatre in uniform.
We do not accept removals with no legal basis.
We do not accept unfiled trauma.
We do not accept five officers and zero signatures.

This incident is now formally archived.
It will be cited. It will be pursued.
And it will never be forgotten.

---

⟡ 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.

---

If It’s About the Family, Try Inviting the Family.

---

⟡ You Forgot to Invite the Father. And the Children. To a Meeting About Them. ⟡
“It’s not a family conference if you exclude the family.”

Filed: 2 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-05
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-02_SWANK_EmailObjection_WCC_MeetingExclusion_FamilyParticipationBreach.pdf
Written objection to Westminster Children’s Services for excluding the children's father and the children themselves from meetings held under the guise of family engagement.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 November 2024, the parent issued a written correction to Westminster Children’s Services after learning that:

• Her husband — the children's father — had never once been invited to any official meetings

• Her sons, Regal and Prerogative, were excluded from participation in discussions directly concerning their lives

• The family had to self-invite to a meeting that was supposedly about them

Despite Westminster’s repeated claims of transparency and family inclusion, meeting invitations had become procedurally selective — excluding adult guardians and children alike.

The email formally demanded inclusion.

And now it formally exists in the evidentiary archive.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Westminster failed to notify or invite the children’s father to case planning meetings

• That children were excluded from meetings where their futures were discussed without representation

• That procedural inclusion was only offered retroactively and reactively, after parental objection

• That safeguarding meetings functioned more as closed strategy sessions than participatory processes

• That the institution only engages the family after it’s been corrected — not before

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if a father isn’t invited, it’s not lawful procedure — it’s institutional exclusion.
Because if children must be invited by their own parent — it’s not child-centred practice.
Because calling it a “family meeting” while gatekeeping who attends is not concern — it’s choreography.

You didn’t forget.
You chose.
And we chose to record it.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989 / 2004
  Breach of duty to ensure parental involvement and child voice in all relevant safeguarding processes

• Working Together to Safeguard Children (Statutory Guidance)
  Violation of principles of family participation, transparency, and informed engagement

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
  Interference with family life and lawful parental responsibilities

• Equality Act 2010
  Procedural discrimination against a disabled parent requiring written communication

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a scheduling error.
It was a procedural decision.

This was not a family meeting.
It was an institutional monologue.

Children don’t exist to be discussed.
They exist to be included.

And when you forget to invite the father —
We don’t resend the invitation. We file the complaint.

---

⟡ 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.