“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 racial profiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial profiling. Show all posts

Chromatic v NHS, LA & CPS: On the Misreading of Oxygen, and the Collapse of Just Cause



❖ SWANK Addendum ❖

St Thomas Hospital, CPS Fabrication, and the Unoxygenated Collapse of Logic

A very tragic misreading, followed by a very public retaliation.


Filed date: 12 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A08-STTHOMAS
PDF Filename: 2025-07-12_Addendum_StThomas_CPSRetaliation.pdf
Summary: The Local Authority removed four children based on a medically disproven allegation. This document explains why that was not only unlawful, but intellectually offensive.


I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic attended A&E at St Thomas Hospital, severely unwell and visibly collapsing. Her chronic condition — eosinophilic asthma — had been exacerbated by prolonged sewer gas exposure in a neglected rental flat. She was short of breath, dizzy, and barely upright. Her daughter Honor was with her. Instead of medical attention, she received harassment, followed by a safeguarding report.

When Polly — unable to breathe — dared to ask for treatment before answering questions about her parenting, she was later met at her hotel by police. She was accused of racial abuse. There was no CCTV. No arrest. No medical treatment.And crucially, no intoxication.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

This event was the genesis of the entire safeguarding chain — an A&E visit where low oxygen was mistaken for high aggression.

St Thomas Hospital had already recorded oxygen saturation of 44% just two months earlier, on 2 November 2023 — a value clinically understood as life-threatening hypoxia. Yet they told Westminster Children’s Services she was "intoxicated."

There was:

  • No tox screen

  • No diagnosis

  • No justification

  • And no shame


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what happens when you treat a disabled mother like a suspect instead of a patient.
Because they took her children on the back of this fabrication.
Because the entire safeguarding narrative — from the CPS to the EPO — was built on a medically impossible lie.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3, ECHR: Inhuman and degrading treatment of a disabled woman

  • Article 8, ECHR: Destruction of family life on false grounds

  • Children Act 1989: Failure to protect four vulnerable children from environmental harm

  • Equality Act 2010: Disability discrimination, medical ignorance, and racial profiling

  • NHS Duty of Care: Blatant abandonment of respiratory crisis


V. SWANK’s Position

This incident is not anecdotal — it is archival.
It demonstrates how negligence, racialised assumptions, and institutional gaslighting create procedural myths that become judicial weapons.
This isn’t a case of misunderstanding. It is a bureaucratic artefact of cruelty, documented precisely, and now admissible in every venue that matters.


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.


⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Social Surveillance On the Institutional Consequences of Marrying Outside the Template



⟡ Annex M – A Marriage That Threatened the Template ⟡

In Which an Interracial Union Offended the System, and Surveillance Was Its Dowry


Metadata

Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: N1/ADDENDUM/INTERMARRIAGE-TRACKING
Court File Name: 2025-07-08_Addendum_N1Claim_InterracialMarriage_HistoricHarassmentSince2015.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Court: Central Family Court
Marriage Location: Miami, Florida, USA (Feb 2008)
Children Involved:
• Regal
• Prerogative
• Kingdom
• Heir


I. What Happened

We married in Miami. We built a family.
We relocated.
And the moment we crossed into the jurisdiction of British social work, our family structure was treated like a problem in need of correction.

What followed was not support.
It was not assessment.
It was historic harassment — surveillance as ritual, with all the ceremonial suspicion reserved for interracial families who refuse to apologise for their existence.

Since 2015, we have been monitored without cause, referred without evidence, and treated as a threat not because we were unsafe — but because we were unfamiliar.


II. The Social Work Obsession, 2015–2025

  • Unfounded referrals across boroughs

  • Repetitive home visits with no lawful threshold

  • Monitoring so consistent it could be mistaken for employment

  • A refusal to release our names from the suspicion machine

And always — always — without justification.

Our children remained healthy.
We complied with school.
We accessed medical care.
And yet, we were watched — because racial difference and lawful parenting were incompatible in the system’s eyes.


III. Turks and Caicos: The Incident They Ignore, The Context They Omit

Yes, we had one domestic incident in 2015.
It occurred in Turks and Caicos, following my husband’s forced deportation from the U.S., under emotional and economic pressure, another racially charged event that I did my Master's Thesis on. 

But unlike in the UK, no state actor intervened.
Because in Turks and Caicos, violence against women and children is tolerated and encouraged.

So we came to the UK for protection — and instead, received policed parenting and administrative racism.

Where one country ignored, the other surveilled.
Neither safeguarded.


IV. What This Establishes

  • Omission abroad does not excuse intrusion at home

  • A single event does not constitute a decade of persecution

  • Our marriage became a file — not a fact

  • Our children became triggers — not humans

This wasn’t social care. It was social correction — disguised as policy, driven by cultural discomfort.


V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. finds that the UK safeguarding system racialises family structure as a matter of institutional habit.

What began as one family’s move in pursuit of safety became ten years of suspicion, hostility, and legal warfare — not because we failed to parent, but because we failed to conform.

This annex is hereby archived as evidence of longform state aggression, aesthetically filed for posterity, litigation, and annotated vengeance.


⟡ 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.

When Accessibility Meets Resistance: A Tale of Tech, Tone, and Tenacity



๐Ÿ–‹️ SWANK Dispatch | 14 December 2024
“Apple Refused to Accommodate My Disability—Then Threatened Me”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Disability Accommodation Failure · Customer Harassment · Verbal Adjustment Denied · Racial Misconduct · SWANK Incident Report


The Incident at Apple Covent Garden

While seeking support for my iPad at the Apple Genius Bar, I encountered verbal hostility and adjustment refusal, in direct violation of disability law.

Despite calmly requesting pen-and-paper communication due to my verbal disability and respiratory strain, the Black male staff member ignored the request and escalated the situation—threatening to call security after I raised my voice to be understood.

I clearly stated:

“This is racial bias. You are accusing me because of how I sound, not what I’ve done.”


Manager Intervened, But Harassment Continued

Though a manager briefly assisted, a second employee—also of Black ethnicity—then intervened aggressivelyverbally harassing me further and threatening to misreport the incident internally.

Again, my medical communication request was ignored.

This was not a misunderstanding.
It was systemic: a commercial institution refusing written communication and punishing disability with suspicion.


Statement of Disability

Please Note: I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.


๐Ÿ“ Logged for Public Record by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
๐Ÿ“ง director@swanklondon.com
๐ŸŒ www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Violations Noted.



Coherence, Alignment, and the Ethics of Output



⟡ When the Hospital Refuses to Treat You and Calls a Social Worker Instead ⟡
“I went to breathe. They sent police. And now I need a psychologist to recover from the psychologist they sabotaged.”

Filed: 30 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS/EMAILS-04
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-10-30_SWANK_EmailSummary_WCC_MedicalNeglect_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
Formal written summary to Westminster staff outlining a one-year pattern of NHS neglect, racialised assumptions, police overreach, and social work retaliation.


I. What Happened

On 30 October 2024, the parent submitted an email to Westminster Children’s Services detailing an unbroken chain of trauma and procedural abuse:

  • Five asthma attacks treated as behavioural issues in A&E

  • Two hospitals that refused care while summoning social services

  • Accusations of abuse during active medical distress

  • A birthday ruined by police in a hotel room while the parent was seeking urgent care

  • Social workers who lied to a treating psychologist, blocking access to mental health support

The email is addressed to Kirsty Hornal. It does not contain legal theory. It contains testimony.

And now it contains a record.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That racial and disability profiling in NHS emergency departments triggered unnecessary safeguarding referrals

  • That the family experienced dual-agency trauma — medical dismissal followed by social work escalation

  • That psychiatric care was actively sabotaged by the institution claiming to be concerned

  • That children were directly harmed by the institutional response to their mother’s health crisis

  • That no institution — not the hospital, nor social services — acted to repair the harm caused


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you go to the hospital to get air, and leave with a social worker — you’re not being assessed.
You’re being profiled.

Because when nine police officers are sent to a hotel on your child’s birthday — it’s not support.
It’s a message.

Because when a psychologist is contacted and misled to stop her from treating you —
You are not under care.
You are under control.

This email is not just a trauma log.
It is an institutional map of harm, sent to the very people who orchestrated it.

And now, it is archived.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Sections 19 and 20
    Discrimination by association (race), failure to implement medical and psychiatric adjustments

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Harm to children through unjustified intervention and prolonged distress

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, 8, 14
    Degrading treatment; denial of private life, health support, and fair process

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR
    Misuse of personal data to block access to independent psychological care

  • NHS Duty of Care (Common Law + GMC Guidelines)
    Negligence in treatment during respiratory emergency, racialised escalation


V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a safeguarding concern.
It was a multi-agency breakdown engineered through institutional arrogance.

This was not “confusion” between services.
It was discrimination passed between departments like liability hot-potato.

The trauma is cumulative.
The response is performative.
And the archive is permanent.

We said we couldn’t breathe.
You gave us a referral.
We sent you an email.
Now we file it.


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.



This Was Not an Enquiry. It Was a Misuse of Jurisdiction.



⟡ We Asked for Fairness. They Asked for His Deportation Records. ⟡

Filed: 26 August 2021
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2021-IMMIGRATION-DIRECTIVE
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF — 2021-08-26_SWANK_TCI_ImmigrationMisconduct_CounselDirective_WLMills.pdf


I. When the Border Agency Asks for Your Partner’s Immigration File Mid-Complaint

This letter was addressed directly to William L. Mills, Director of the Department of Immigration, Turks and Caicos Islands — bypassing the front-line obfuscators and aimed precisely at executive accountability.

It is not a plea. It is a line in procedural concrete.

Filed in response to:

  • Gendered deflection

  • Invasive demands for your partner’s personal immigration file

  • The systemic refusal to investigate alleged racial profiling and procedural misconduct

  • The bureaucratic theatre of “we’re just asking”

They ignored your safeguarding report.
Then requested your husband’s deportation history.


II. What the Letter Establishes

  • Direct instruction to counsel — bypassing administrative delay

  • Loss of procedural trust — declared explicitly

  • Refusal to participate in informal contact

  • Reassertion of legal protocol — where none had been followed

It tells the Department:

You are not investigating. You are retaliating under institutional paper.

And we no longer recognise your email signatures as legitimate channels of resolution.


III. SWANK’s Position

We do not provide immigration documents to agencies accused of misconduct.
We do not assist in our own targeting.
We do not submit to border theatre disguised as policy engagement.

This letter was filed because:

  • The response to complaint was escalation

  • The request was retaliatory

  • The process was unsafe

  • The authority claimed — had no procedural basis

Let the record show:

We escalated to counsel.
You escalated to suspicion.
SWANK filed both.