⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Indirect Contact, Direct Contempt
In re Chromatic v. Westminster, Concerning the Prevention of Improvised Contact, the Collapse of Court Authority, and the PHSO’s Auto-Acknowledgement of Nothing
📎 Metadata
Filed: 7 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-JUR-0625-PHSO-INDIRECT
Court File Name: 2025-06-25_SWANK_CourtDirection_PHSO_IndirectContactPrevention
1-line summary: Request submitted to court and oversight bodies to prevent unlawful indirect contact from social workers during active litigation; met with automated silence.
I. What Happened
On 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal request for court direction to prevent unlawful indirect contact with her children by Westminster Children’s Services. This followed repeated safeguarding breaches, private messaging, and procedural gamesmanship designed to bypass legal oversight.
The request was simultaneously lodged with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
The result:
A multilingual wall of hyperlink-stuffed nothingness, inviting the complainant to repeat herself in multiple formats or wait 30 days for a caseworker to add the email to a drawer.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That social workers were bypassing direct contact restrictions via informal methods
That no legitimate oversight was exercised by the court or administrative bodies
That even requests made in formal legal language and crisis context are routed to public FAQ centres
That the prevention of harm is not a priority — but the formatting of the complaint is
Oversight bodies don’t mind abuse.
They mind incomplete forms.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because improvised contact by state agents during litigation is not a mistake — it’s a technique.
Because the children of a mother in active court proceedings are not institutional playthings — nor should their access to communication be governed by invisible hands and multilingual disclaimers.
SWANK logs this email to document a truth we already knew:
When contact is unlawful, they make it untraceable.
When complaints are lawful, they make them unreadable.
IV. Violations
Unlawful indirect contact
Safeguarding breaches amid declared legal filings
Judicial evasion through non-formal communication tactics
Administrative neutralisation of emergency complaints
The PHSO received a request to prevent child contact manipulation.
They replied with opening hours and Braille availability.
V. SWANK’s Position
The failure to act is no longer abstract.
It is timestamped, hyperlinked, and replied to with contemptuous efficiency.
This case will proceed without PHSO intervention — because SWANK does not beg for assistance.
We record the rot.
We publish the archive.
We weaponise the delay.
And when indirect contact is used to destabilise the parent-child bond, we name it what it is:
Institutional grooming through official channels.
⟡ 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.