“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label mental health slander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mental health slander. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Concern Industry: On the Fabrication of Risk and the Privilege of Vagueness


🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY

The Demand for Answers

Or, When You Call Something an Investigation Without Ever Naming the Crime

Filed: 18 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-MH-SPECULATION-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-18_SWANK_Letter_MetWestminster_UnlawfulInvestigationAndProfiling.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic demands clarity from the police and Westminster about an “investigation” no one will name and allegations no one can prove.

I. What Happened

On 18 October 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a sharp, plainspoken email to Westminster Children’s Services and the Metropolitan Police regarding an investigation so vague, it seemed allergic to evidence.

She asked two reasonable questions:

  1. What, precisely, is the concern about her mental health?

  2. What, exactly, was the “erratic behaviour” she’s being accused of?

Instead of an answer, she received silence — which is, in SWANK terms, the first sign of bureaucratic guilt.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This message reveals the machinery of pretextual safeguarding:

  • “Mental health” is invoked with no diagnostic basis.

  • “Erratic behaviour” refers to a hospital visit for respiratory distress — i.e., the crime of breathing poorly while disabled.

  • No written concern. No witness. No incident report. Just racialised innuendo wrapped in institutional politeness.

Her final question cuts through it all:

“Why are all the social workers white?”

It is not rhetorical. It is sociological.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “safeguarding concern” is not a spell, and yet they cast it constantly.
Because “erratic” means nothing when you’re dying of asthma.
Because calling something an investigation doesn’t make it lawful.

This email is not just a refusal — it is a request for forensic accountability.

And when a mother says, “I want answers before I allow an investigation,” what she’s really saying is: your story is incoherent, and I’m not going to play along.

IV. Violations

  • Procedural Impropriety – Conducting interventions with no clear allegation

  • Disability Discrimination – Penalising respiratory distress as behaviour

  • Racial Bias – Unexamined racial homogeneity in safeguarding authority

  • Article 6 ECHR – Right to know the case against you

  • Article 14 ECHR – Discriminatory application of protective powers

V. SWANK’s Position

This email is a jewel of legal lucidity. It captures the absurdity of being watched, investigated, and judged by a body that won’t even say why.

We file this not as a complaint, but as a chronicle of procedural delusion.

Let the record show:
Polly Chromatic asked what the charge was.
And Westminster responded, as usual, with ellipses and forms.

⚖️ 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.

No comments: