⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue
The Notice They Refused to Heed: Sarah Newman, Safeguarding Retaliation, and the Formal End of Good Faith
Filed Date: 22 May 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A13-SARAHNEWMAN-CEASE
Court File Name: 2025-05-22_SWANK_Addendum_CeaseAndDesist_SarahNewman_RetaliationNotice
1-line Summary: A formal legal notice demanding institutional disengagement due to disability discrimination and procedural abuse — ignored by Westminster.
I. What Happened
On 22 May 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a Final Legal Notice to Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Bi-Borough Children’s Services. This cease-and-desist letter was sent in direct response to repeated, unlawful safeguarding contact by Westminster and RBKC officials — all while Polly’s medical, legal, and procedural rights were already on record.
The letter:
Summarised active legal proceedings (N1, N16A, Judicial Review)
Cited filed police reports
Asserted enforceable medical adjustments under the Equality Act 2010
Demanded cessation of all verbal, encrypted, or in-person communication
Warned of personal liability, court escalation, and whistleblower release
Sarah Newman did not respond. Instead, her department escalated its aggression — leading to the forced removal of Polly's four children just one month later.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Sarah Newman was personally placed on legal notice
That medical exemptions and legal adjustments were clearly invoked
That the right to silence was lawfully exercised
That non-response constituted institutional negligence
That any further engagement from her department after this date was retaliatory, not protective
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because silence is never neutral.
Because refusal to disengage after formal notice isn’t oversight — it’s oppression.
Because this document proves that Westminster acted in full knowledge of its breaches, and that Sarah Newman’s leadership role was not passive, but participatory.
This notice was the line — drawn with legal citations, medical backing, and active court filings. Westminster crossed it anyway. That makes what followed not child protection, but jurisdictional misconduct.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour communication adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8, Article 14) – Family interference without justification
Safeguarding Retaliation Doctrine – Use of child welfare systems to punish legal assertiveness
Common Law Harassment – Repeated, unwanted contact after formal refusal
UN CRPD, Articles 5 and 21 – Disregard for disability-related legal protections
V. SWANK’s Position
Sarah Newman, as Executive Director, had the legal, institutional, and ethical duty to acknowledge this cease-and-desist. She failed — and therefore became an active party to the harm that followed.
This notice is now logged permanently in the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue, the civil claim, and the UN submissions. It will serve as Exhibit A in all future claims of institutional retaliation, leadership misconduct, and safeguarding misuse.
They were told.
They were warned.
They escalated anyway.
And now the record will not let them forget it.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.