⟡ “Retaliation is Not a Service. Discrimination is Not a Strategy.” ⟡
Formal multi-agency complaint submitted to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services for systemic failure, disability abuse, and retaliation
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/SYSTEMIC-FAILURE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliationSystemicFailings.pdf
Complaint addressed to both boroughs outlining institutional retaliation, disability neglect, and safeguarding weaponisation
I. What Happened
On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a joint complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services. The email, copied to Dr. Philip Reid and social worker Kirsty Hornal, attached a comprehensive record of medical, legal, and evidentiary failures by multiple professionals. The complaint identified a pattern of retaliation following:
Protected legal activity
Disability-related communication requests
Efforts to assert child rights and prevent medical harm
The documents submitted included NHS correspondence, PLO challenges, and social worker reports — laying bare the pattern of coordinated refusal to accommodate, respond, or de-escalate.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: Ignoring written-only communication needs; retaliating against legal action; failure to apply child welfare principles
Human impact: Medical regression, psychological harm, loss of educational access, fear of home invasion
Power dynamics: Social work roles repurposed as surveillance and compliance enforcement
Institutional failure: Total collapse of accountability, checks, or even basic communication standards
Unacceptable conduct: Targeting a disabled mother and her children under the pretext of care
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because complaints should not be met with escalation.
Because safeguarding cannot be invoked against the very families it fails to safeguard.
Because retaliation is not an “internal matter” — it’s a jurisdictional breach.
Because Polly Chromatic made this clear: the pattern is no longer anecdotal — it’s administrative culture.
This entry was not written in anger. It was written in architectural grief.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, 27 – failure to adjust, harassment by refusal, victimisation by escalation
Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk frameworks; neglect of actual welfare needs
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – obstruction of due process; invasion of family privacy
Professional Conduct Codes – neglect of duties under SWE and local authority guidance
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t failure. It was structure.
We do not accept social work as a tool of punishment.
We do not accept medical vulnerability as an invitation for institutional punishment.
We do not accept safeguarding that treats parents as threats and records as weapons.
SWANK archives this complaint as a civil record of modern municipal abuse — documented with clarity, filed with jurisdictional precision.
⟡ 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.