⟡ “A Karate Referral is Not a Safeguarding Concern.” ⟡
Formal police report notification after malicious referral targeting a disabled mother and her children
Filed: 18 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBK-WESTMINSTER/DISCRIMINATION-REFERRAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-18_SWANK_Email_RyuKai_DisabilityPoliceReport.pdf
Email to martial arts studio and professionals confirming police report filed for malicious safeguarding referral
I. What Happened
On 18 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a formal notification email to the Ryu-Kai martial arts team and multiple professionals from Westminster, RBKC, NHS, and the Metropolitan Police. The message confirmed that she had filed a police report following what she identified as a malicious safeguarding referral tied to disability discrimination.
The referral reportedly originated after one of Polly’s children attended martial arts classes — and the resulting escalation was deemed by her to be both medically unfounded and procedurally retaliatory.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: Triggering child protection involvement based on a lawful extracurricular activity
Human impact: Trauma to the child targeted, reputational harm, and reinforcement of surveillance culture
Power dynamics: Abuse of safeguarding authority to scrutinise disabled families for accessing community resources
Institutional failure: No accountability for why a child doing karate became a multi-agency concern
Unacceptable conduct: Treating a police report as provocation rather than protection
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is what happens when disabled families try to live normally.
Because Ryu-Kai was never the problem — but they were copied in like it was.
Because the system’s default is not care. It is control.
Because it is now on record that a martial arts class became the pretext for multi-agency intrusion.
SWANK archived this as an emblem of how easily the ordinary is weaponised — especially when the parent is disabled, vocal, and unwilling to be intimidated.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 15 & 27 – discrimination arising from disability; victimisation after protected action
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to promote the welfare of children through overreach
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – interference with private life and access to community participation
Professional standards (Social Work England) – breach of ethical neutrality and unjustified referral conduct
V. SWANK’s Position
Martial arts is not neglect.
Legal police reports are not “non-engagement.”
Being disabled is not cause for escalation.
SWANK does not accept weaponised referrals for public activities.
We do not accept retaliatory scrutiny masked as concern.
We do not accept a safeguarding system that cannot distinguish between threat and therapy.
This referral was a warning shot — and now, it’s a watermark.
⟡ 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.