⟡ “You Made My Children Withdraw from Class — and You Filmed Yourself Doing It” ⟡
A written objection to forced engagement, cultural coercion, and the kind of safeguarding that makes children quit learning.
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_Westminster_PLOAbuse_ChildWithdrawal.pdf
Email from Polly Chromatic to Westminster Children’s Services, documenting educational disruption, medical harm, and the abuse of statutory power disguised as child protection.
I. What Happened
On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic wrote to Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal to formally document the harm caused by PLO intrusion. The message confirms that:
The social worker forced verbal contact, triggering a documented medical reaction
The children voluntarily withdrew from their education activities due to sustained institutional stress
Westminster acknowledged this outcome — and offered to pay for classes after causing the harm
A video exists of the same social worker stating that services were voluntary
The safeguarding approach imposed was culturally incompatible, coercive, and disrespectful
Rather than acknowledging medical or emotional risk, Westminster continued applying hostile statutory pressure — under the pretext of “support.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Direct physical and educational harm to a family already under medical protection
Safeguarding escalation used as a disciplinary tool against disabled and culturally distinct parents
Social workers documenting one position on video, then acting against it in practice
Emotional withdrawal of children from learning spaces — caused by the safeguarding process itself
Ongoing refusal to adapt to known health conditions and trauma triggers
III. Why SWANK Filed It
This record shows safeguarding for what it often becomes in practice: a punitive theatre in which parental voices are erased, children are destabilised, and cultural autonomy is treated as defiance. When children walk away from their own lessons to avoid the stress of state intrusion, that’s not non-compliance — it’s protection from harm.
SWANK London Ltd. archived this email to:
Document the direct link between Westminster’s interventions and educational disruption
Establish that the harm was predictable, avoidable, and acknowledged by the officer involved
Preserve first-person written testimony of cultural and medical mismanagement by Children’s Services
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate medical conditions; cultural insensitivity
Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm and disruption of education
UNCRC – Article 12 (respect for child views), Article 23 (disabled child protection), Article 30 (cultural identity)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (private and family life)
Social Work England Standards – Inappropriate conduct, recording contradictions, and boundary disrespect
V. SWANK’s Position
Westminster cannot claim to act in the best interest of the child while applying policies that frighten them out of school. It cannot offer to pay for an activity while forcing the child to participate in it. And it cannot tell families they are being helped while documenting their collapse. This letter is not just correspondence. It is a record of controlled institutional sabotage.
SWANK London Ltd. calls for:
Independent review of how social workers interpret “voluntary” services under PLO
A moratorium on forced educational compliance during statutory safeguarding conflict
Public access to video-recorded contradictions made by field officers
⟡ 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.