Don’t Record Us Breaking the Rules — That’s Harassment

---

⟡ “You Filmed Us Breaking the Rules — So Now We’re Threatening You for Filming” ⟡
When the safeguarding process is exposed, Westminster responds not with correction — but with coercion.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Email_Westminster_SamBrown_PLOThreatsCommunicationRestrictions.pdf
Email from Deputy Service Manager Sam Brown threatening procedural consequences for lawful evidence-gathering, re-framing documentation as harassment and ignoring statutory communication adjustments.

---

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Sam Brown — a new figurehead in Westminster’s safeguarding theatre — sent this email in response to ongoing written complaints and evidentiary submissions from Polly Chromatic. Rather than address any of the claims made, he chose to:

• Recast written-only communication (a medical necessity) as disruptive

• Assert that recording social workers is potentially illegal or intimidating

• Imply that the parent’s efforts to document harassment could lead to consequences

• Reiterate participation in the Public Law Outline (PLO) process as required — while still misrepresenting its legal basis

• Impose arbitrary boundaries on when and how the parent may raise concerns

This letter is not a response. It is a warning dressed as a welcome.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• Westminster is aware they are being recorded — and they do not like it

• The local authority treats written communication from disabled residents as hostile

• Officials are now openly retaliating against legal and procedural accountability

• The PLO process is being used as a disciplinary mechanism, not a protective one

• The council’s own documentation is more incriminating than the evidence being submitted

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is the moment where politeness ends and procedure is used to silence, not to serve. SWANK archived this letter to demonstrate how Westminster has transitioned from concealment to active threat — now targeting lawful communication, video evidence, and disabled autonomy.

SWANK filed this to:

• Show how the authority has reframed transparency as aggression

• Highlight retaliatory use of safeguarding frameworks in response to complaint

• Build a public record of institutional conduct designed to avoid scrutiny at all costs

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 20, 27 (disability discrimination, failure to adjust, victimisation)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 6 (fair process), Article 10 (freedom of expression)

• Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm caused by procedural misconduct

• UK GDPR – Inaccuracy and suppression of individual data rights

• Social Work England Standards – Misuse of authority, intimidation, and refusal to engage in ethical communication

---

V. SWANK’s Position

When a council begins to punish you for documenting their behaviour, you are not being protected. You are being managed. When they refuse to respond unless it's on their terms — even in the face of trauma, medical evidence, and human rights law — you are no longer in a safeguarding process. You are in a cover-up.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

• Immediate retraction of implied legal threats against lawful evidence-gathering

• Public clarification of the legal status of recordings taken in safeguarding contexts

• Regulatory investigation into Sam Brown’s communications and procedural conduct

---

⟡ 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.

Breathing While Documented: How Hospitals Manufacture Safeguarding from Medical Data

---

🖋️ SWANK Emergency Dispatch
I Came for Oxygen. They Wanted a Confession.

Filed: 14 February 2024

Labels: Medical Neglect, Safeguarding Retaliation, Breathing While Mothering, Evidence Suppression, Clinical Coercion, Data Denial

---

⚜ WELCOME TO SWANK

An Archive of ✦ Elegance, ✦ Complaint, ✦ and Unapologetic Standards
by a Mother Harassed by the State in Two Countries for Over a Decade.

---

❝ I Was Too Breathless to Speak, So I Offered My Book. She Told Me to Hold It Myself. ❞

---

A Detailed Reconstruction of 4 February 2024 — Chelsea & Westminster Emergency Department

Condition: Documented asthma exacerbation, SpO2 90–95%, peak flow critical.
Arrival: Uber — too weak to walk.

---

✦ What I Brought

• Peak flow readings, meticulously logged in a notebook

• SpO2 data from Apple Watch & Smart Flow meter

• Oxygen levels with timestamps

• History of treatment refusal

• Body cam recording (audio preserved, video pending)

---

✦ What They Did

Initial Nurse Response:
She asked for my peak flow. I offered my notebook.
❝ Hold your own book. ❞

I whispered:
❝ I can’t breathe. ❞
She said:
❝ You can breathe. ❞

She refused to share my oxygen readings, moved me to another cubicle where a different nurse gave a nebuliser.

Medical records from the previous night were “missing.” The game of lost files began.

---

✦ The “St Thomas Trigger”

They discovered I’d attended St Thomas Hospital. Then:

❝ Do you have four children? ❞

Left alone thirty minutes, then a senior nurse arrived—no physician.

“There was an incident last night at St. Thomas. We need to ensure your children are safe.”
“We may need to call the police.”

I replied:
❝ Go ahead. But treat me first. I can’t breathe. ❞

---

✦ The Real Problem

They weren’t responding to a medical emergency.
They escalated a safeguarding narrative based on false records from another hospital — records I was disputing.

This is retaliatory referral — the epidemic behind every fabricated concern.

---

✦ Final Treatment

After explaining I was refused a second nebuliser the night before, they relented and gave:

• A second nebuliser

• Prednisone

• Permission to leave

But only after proving compliance — not illness.

---

✦ This Post is a Record

🩺 I was not erratic.
📚 I was not unprepared.
🧾 I brought data.
🎥 I brought proof.

Yet, they framed the narrative around risk, not treatment.

Because, to the system, a mother with evidence is not a patient.
She is a threat.

---

Filed under: Institutional Gaslighting, Referral Retaliation, Oxygen as Leverage, Parenthood as Risk Category, Clinical Misconduct

---

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

---

Search Description:
Polly Chromatic exposes retaliatory hospital referral amid severe asthma attack, highlighting medical neglect and institutional gaslighting.

My Asthma Isn’t a Risk — Your Referral Is

 📎 SWANK Dispatch: Four Children. Three Diagnoses. Zero Legal Reason to Escalate.

🗓️ 28 February 2024

Filed Under: Section 47 escalation, disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, RBKC retaliation, Chelsea and Westminster cover-up, asthma crisis weaponised, mother’s medical record ignored, lawful parenting undermined, discriminatory assessment

---

“He kept asking if my son looks after me.
I said no.
But I do look after myself.
And I had to record it — because I knew they wouldn’t write it down.”
— A Disabled Mother Denied Protection but Given Surveillance

---

This document captures the height of RBKC’s Section 47 misconduct, following a string of false safeguarding referralsinitiated by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. Despite having:

• Four children with formal asthma diagnoses

• A written medical record of her own chronic illness

• Documented retaliation from NHS staff after requesting oxygen and filing a complaint

RBKC social workers, including Samira Issa, continued to escalate concerns based on:

• “Frequency of referrals” (all originating from misconduct)

• Out-of-context observations about her voice, posture, or family dynamics

• Their own failure to understand her disability

---

🔎 I. When the Report Isn’t an Assessment — It’s a Narrative

RBKC’s internal reports:

• Omitted key medical facts

• Reframed legal homeschooling as a concern

• Suggested parentification without evidence

• Downplayed the falsehood of the original referral

• Used subjective impressions of “household energy” as justification

And worst of all:

• Never referenced the video or audio recordings that contradicted their version

• Refused to withdraw the report, despite being proven factually incorrect

---

📹 II. The Evidence They Ignored

Noelle submitted:

• 📼 Full hospital audio: Chelsea & Westminster Nurse Audio

• 📹 Four home visit videos showing calm, stable children and respectful parenting:

  • Clip 1

  • Clip 2

  • Clip 3

  • Clip 4

Yet these were never referenced in the investigation.

---

✍️ III. SWANK Commentary

They claim to care about the child’s welfare.
But they don’t want to talk about asthma.
Or mold.
Or missing medical files.
Or why Samira Issa brought her mum instead of a professional.

The “concern”
is just a cover
for surveillance.

---