“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 researcher targeted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label researcher targeted. Show all posts

In re Chromatic v. Westminster & RBKC, Concerning the Irony of Surveilling an Ethical AI Researcher and Hoping She Wouldn’t Notice


⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Ethics, Explained to the Unethical

In re Chromatic v. Westminster & RBKC, Concerning the Irony of Surveilling an Ethical AI Researcher and Hoping She Wouldn’t Notice

📎 Metadata

Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: SWL-OP-0708-AISURVEILLANCE
1-line summary: Ethical AI researcher subjected to institutional surveillance, procedural exclusion, and retaliatory removal — and archived it with precision.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic is a mother of four, a U.S. citizen, and a researcher working in ethical AI — a field concerned with bias mitigation, systemic fairness, and procedural accountability.

So naturally, when British safeguarding authorities unlawfully removed her children, surveilled her home, blocked medical care, and retaliated after formal filings…
They assumed she wouldn’t notice.

Unfortunately for them, they didn’t read her CV.

II. What the Events Demonstrate

  • That surveillance was deployed on someone who studies surveillance systems

  • That procedural harm was inflicted on a mother who literally trains machines to detect it

  • That retaliation was weaponised against someone who had already filed the code of their misconduct into public legal record

  • That none of this was done algorithmically — just badly

Institutions thought she was overreacting.
She was modeling bias propagation in real time.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you can’t surveil a surveillance expert without becoming her dataset.

Because the question isn’t: Did they breach safeguarding procedure?
It’s: How long did they think they could weaponise bureaucracy against an AI ethicist before the archive metastasised?

Because when they decided to use safeguarding law as a punishment, they forgot that some parents know how to file a civil claim with a search index.

IV. Violations That Look Worse in Retrospect

  • Forced separation without legal process

  • Withholding of communication and medication

  • Removal of U.S. citizen children during open litigation

  • Disabling procedural sabotage after knowledge of active N1 and Judicial Review

These are not minor oversights.
They are dataset features, logged and time-stamped, backed by clinical notes, international law, and metadata.

V. SWANK’s Position

You do not monitor an ethical AI researcher with procedural force and expect a quiet ending.
You expect a bundle.
You expect a blog post.
You expect case law with cheekbones.

This isn’t just a legal fight. It’s a control study in procedural harm.
Filed by the only participant who knew what every variable meant.

⟡ 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.

No comments: