🧾 THE OBJECTION ON RECORD
On the Formal Rebuttal to Samira Issa’s Report and the Practice of Safeguarding via Vagueness
Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 29 February 2024
Reference Code: SWANK/SAMIRA/0229-CP
PDF Filename: 2024.29.02 Samira 0.63527.pdf
Summary: A formal response to the Initial CP Conference report authored by Samira Issa, correcting institutional falsehoods and demanding clarity on vague allegations of “dysregulation” and “abuse.”
I. What Happened
On 29 February 2024, Polly Chromatic submitted a direct and detailed response to the Initial Child Protection Conference SOS Mapping Report authored by Samira Issa, Westminster social worker.
The report, which floated racially-coded assumptions, vague behavioural allegations, and narratives unsupported by evidence, was met with line-by-line rebuttal.
The mother clarified:
The children are emotionally secure and academically stable
Past cross-borough checks showed no safeguarding concerns
The 2 January 2024 hospital incident was handled lawfully, with no police objections
The 3 February 2024 attendance was managed to protect the child from trauma
Medical letters disproved the false intoxication claim
Terms like “dysregulation” and “racial abuse” were used without detail, evidence, or procedural clarity
It is a correction — and a confrontation.
II. What the Response Establishes
This is not a parent’s plea.
This is a forensic dismantling of safeguarding theatre.
It establishes that:
Westminster was running on assumption, not evidence
Racial and behavioural coding were used strategically and evasively
No concern was registered by police, medical, or hotel staff during the incidents cited
The social worker invoked suspicion instead of specifics
Medical harm was ignored in favour of speculative policing of parental decisions
The report did not assess the children.
It assessed the narrative power of institutional authority — and failed.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because safeguarding should never be a vocabulary game.
Because no professional should use the term “dysregulated” without citing what happened, to whom, when, and how.
Because racial abuse is too serious a claim to be deployed without consequence — or detail.
Because this report reveals how safeguarding has been distorted into theatre: vague, racialised, procedural, and prosecutorial — but never accountable.
This rebuttal enters the archive to mark the moment where a mother refused to be rewritten.
IV. Violations
Article 6 ECHR – Lack of specificity violates the right to a fair and clear process
Article 14 ECHR – Racial discrimination via vague, culturally coded accusations
Equality Act 2010 – Procedural bias based on race, disability, and speech
Children Act 1989 – Procedural dishonesty in welfare assessments
Data Protection Act 2018 – Improper handling of unsubstantiated or defamatory data
V. SWANK’s Position
This report is not a safeguarding document.
It is an annotated suspicion script, marked by legal vagueness, racial overtones, and deflection of procedural accountability.
Polly Chromatic replied.
Politely.
Specifically.
With law and fact.
Her response is now logged, published, and referenced.
The report, however, remains unsourced, unanchored, and now — unsupported.