Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): homeschool obstruction

Showing posts with label homeschool obstruction. Show all posts

How to Disappear a Family (Without Ever Losing Their Number)

🧾 SWANK Dispatch: I Didn't Relocate — You Just Lied

🗓️ 24 October 2020

Filed Under: false relocation claim, sexual abuse cover-up, social worker evasion, psychological evaluation, truancy distortion, homeschool retaliation, DSD negligence, environmental trauma, institutional gaslighting

“They touched my children without consent.
Then claimed they couldn’t find us.
While calling me on the same number I’ve had since 2016.”
— A Mother Who’s Been ‘Relocated’ Without Ever Moving House

This 6-page memorandum to Mark Fulford of F Chambers is a bombshell of misconduct, denial, and bureaucratic revisionism.

In it, Polly Chromatic traces the systematic erasure and distortion of traumatic incidents, including:

• Sexual abuse of her children during an unconsented medical examination
• Fabricated claims of relocation to excuse DSD’s abandonment of the case
• Contradictory timelines from official reports and emails
• A full rebuttal of false educational neglect claims
• Evidence of DSD’s continued harassment despite full compliance

🧠 I. The “Relocation” Myth

Despite being present, reachable, and compliant, DSD repeatedly claimed:

“The family had relocated”
“They were unable to complete assessment”
“They could not locate the mother”

Meanwhile:

She was living at the same Palm Grove address
She had the same phone number since 2016
She was home ill during 2018 — not missing
DSD had previously visited her there — on record

“If they couldn’t find me, why didn’t they call me?”
“They did. Many times.”

👩‍⚖️ II. What She Documents

Medical assault of her sons with no consent and no privacy
Clear motive to cover up this by claiming an incomplete investigation
Constant homeschool obstruction, despite written approvals
Threats to inspect children’s notebooks — even though all learning is digital
Mould-related illness from uninhabitable conditions in Providenciales
Interference in home renovations used to justify safeguarding action
Fabricated safeguarding concerns based on sightings during "school hours"
One-sided “psychological evaluations” that were never returned

⚠️ III. Why This Letter Exists

Because institutional memory loss is not a clerical issue — it is a weapon.
And this letter ensures that:

Every lie is dated
Every contradiction is documented
Every abuse is followed by a name and a timestamp

I Called for Protection. They Called About Paperwork.

📞 SWANK Dispatch: Phone Call Follow-Up — Reframing the Real Issue

🗓️ 8 August 2020

Filed Under: complaint redirection, education stall tactics, social worker abuse, policy opacity, unfulfilled reporting, hospital misconduct, child rights violations, administrative diversion

“My complaint was about abuse. Their concern was whether I had submitted a form.”
— A Mother Who Understood the Difference Between Safety and Surveillance

In this follow-up letter to Willette A. Pratt, Senior Investigative Officer at the Complaints Commission, Polly Chromatic reasserts a crucial distinction: her original complaint was about institutional harm — not late paperwork.

On 7 August 2020, Willette phoned her. She mentioned concern over the start of the school year on 31 August and the urgency of homeschool registration. But Noelle didn’t initiate this complaint over education delays — she initiated it over abuse, neglect, and the complete failure of state mechanisms to follow their own laws.

🧱 I. Her Complaint Was Clear — The System Keeps Reframing It

Her original complaint included:

Repeated unlawful and traumatising actions by Social Development
A hospital incident involving sexual abuse and rights violations
Failure to provide any reports, timelines, or rationale for investigation
Refusal to supply written homeschool registration requirements

Instead, Willette focused on the school calendar.

🧠 II. What She Wants Is Lawful Process — Not Bureaucratic Panic

Outcomes Noelle requests:

📄 Reports corresponding to every state intervention
📄 Written explanation of the prolonged investigation
📄 A formal review of the hospital assault
📄 Written policies on how to register for homeschool
📄 Written expectations for maintaining homeschool compliance
📄 Review of whether Social Development is complying with law

Her offer:

“I am willing to follow a formal written letter... provided to me directly from the Deputy Director or the Director of The Department of Education.”

What she has not received:
Any of the above.

📚 III. UK Homeschool Law Quoted in Full — With More Legal Literacy Than the State

Polly cites 13 points from UK law, noting:

No required subjects
No required tutors
No legal duty to notify authorities
No mandatory testing or “school day” conformity
Home educated children are not automatically vulnerable
Oversight must be proportionate, not coercive

📌 Final Clarity:

“I initiated the complaint… because the Department of Social Development is not and has not been following the law… and has put the safety and wellbeing of my children at risk.”

It was never about forms.
It was always about trauma, transparency, and the right to educate without persecution.

I Went to Report Abuse — They Told Me I Was the Criminal

📑 SWANK Dispatch: How to Mismanage a Complaint into a Threat

🗓️ 6 August 2020

Filed Under: complaint misdirection, truancy lies, homeschool sabotage, procedural dishonesty, trauma minimisation, asthma discrimination, policy weaponisation, investigative misconduct

“I brought evidence. They brought back the original threat — with new stationery.”
— A Mother Who Tried Every Proper Channel

On 6 August 2020, Polly Chromatic met with Willette A. Pratt, Senior Investigative Officer of the Complaints Commission, expecting an investigation into her trauma and systemic abuse by the Department of Social Development. What she received was an administrative boomerang: the original truancy threat from 2017 — revived, rebranded, and hurled back at her by the very commission meant to hear her complaint.

🔁 I. The Complaint Was About Trauma. The Response Was a Checklist.

She described the following:

• Her sons were sexually abused by a doctor under state orders.
• Her fence was dismantled.
• Her home was entered illegally during a pandemic.
• She was dragged to hospital under false accusations.

What did Willette Pratt say?

“Your children aren’t approved for homeschool, and they may be taken away.”

📋 II. The New Requirements — Delivered with a Smile

Pratt claimed Polly had spoken to the wrong official in 2017.
Apparently, Mark Garland, Deputy Director of Education, was not “senior enough.”
Despite having:
✓ Met with her
✓ Approved her curriculum
✓ Notified Social Development

Now, she was told to:

• Re-submit all documentation
• Include proof of social interaction
• Hire a teacher to assess her children annually
• Address it to Edgar Howell, Director
• Send it through Pratt (of course)

🧠 III. The Gaslight Was Institutional

“I feel like the entire issue is much bigger than just with the Department of Social Development.”

Indeed. The Complaints Commission had become another arm of the same dysfunction. Rather than investigating the abuse, it pivoted to treating the victim as the problem.

⚖️ Final Position:

“Because obtaining homeschool approval is so important for my children’s well-being… I feel it is necessary to consult an attorney.”

A mother filed a complaint to protect her children.
She left that meeting more endangered than when she arrived.

I Asked for the Policy in 2017. I’m Still Waiting in 2020.

📚 SWANK Dispatch: When Approval to Homeschool Is Weaponised Against You

🗓️ 5 August 2020

Filed Under: homeschool sabotage, administrative gaslighting, social worker overreach, truancy threats, institutional memory failure, medical abuse, policy denial, bureaucratic cruelty

“I was approved. I submitted everything. But they kept moving the goalpost.”
— A Mother in Compliance, Not Complicit

In this dispatch dated 5 August 2020, Polly Chromatic finally directs her words to the actual Director of Education, Edgar Howell, after three years of being bounced between Mark Garland, Mr. Kennedy, and the Department of Social Development — all of whom demanded documentation, received it, and still continued to threaten her family with unlawful action.

What she asked for was simple.
What she received was state-fuelled trauma.

🗂️ I. Homeschool Policy? She Asked in 2017.

Polly’s BA and MA degrees were submitted.
She submitted her curriculum every year since 2017.
She had verbal approval from Mark Garland, who confirmed it in writing.

Yet in 2020, she’s told:

“You spoke to the wrong person.”

No policy was ever provided.
But truancy threats were. Repeatedly.

🚨 II. Institutional Harassment in Lieu of Lawful Process

Let us catalogue:

• May 2017: Her sons were sexually assaulted during a forced examination by a doctor in front of 9 adults — under the orders of Social Development
• March 2020: Her home was entered against her will and against COVID Emergency Powers
• August 2020: Her fence was dismantled and her children were forcibly taken for a vaccination check (they were vaccinated)

No reports. No charges. No apologies. Just more visits.

⚖️ III. The Complaint Became the Crime

When she contacted the Complaints Commission, she was told:

“You’re not approved to homeschool and they may take your children.”

Thus, the very act of filing a complaint resurrected a false allegation she had resolved three years earlier — a tactic as coercive as it is cruel.

📎 Final Request, Made Clear:

“Please provide me with written approval to homeschool along with the policy and procedures that I need to follow.”

What she deserves: a written policy.
What she demands: lawful treatment.
What she gets: recycled threats dressed as safeguarding.