⟡ “They Needed a Reminder on Ethics. So Polly Sent Them One. They All Failed.” ⟡
Sent to everyone who claimed to care about safeguarding. None replied. All retaliated.
Filed: 12 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC+WCC/ETHICS-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-12_SWANK_Email_RBKC_WCC_EthicalGuidelinesForwarded.pdf
A quietly damning email forwarding a list of ethical principles to the very officials who would soon violate all of them.
I. What Happened
On 12 January 2025, Polly Chromatic forwarded a set of professional ethical behaviour guidelines to a long list of named professionals across Westminster, RBKC, education services, and medical affiliates.
The list included ten principles:
Honesty
Fairness
Respect
Accountability
Altruism
Confidentiality
Courage
Humility
Environmental responsibility
Professional integrity
The recipients included senior safeguarding leads, council officials, health professionals, and social workers involved in live contact with Polly’s family.
Not one of them acknowledged it.
None responded.
And in the months that followed, many of them escalated their involvement — through data breaches, process manipulation, forced interventions, or outright removal.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Clear notice of what ethical behaviour required — on record
Total institutional refusal to engage, even passively
Escalating conduct from named recipients in direct contradiction to the document they received
Systemic apathy toward professional standards
A verifiable link between ethical disregard and retaliatory practice
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this was the moment they were given the opportunity to act with dignity — and declined.
Because no one can say “they didn’t know” what integrity required.
Because Polly sent them a candle, and they chose the match.
Because this email isn’t just an ignored reminder — it’s a chronological indictment.
Because they knew how to behave — and chose not to.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – failure to act in good faith toward child welfare
Equality Act 2010 – procedural discrimination continued despite advance ethical alert
Data Protection Act 2018 – continued data misuse and secrecy
Social Work England Standards – failure to reflect, respond, or uphold professional principles
NHS Code of Conduct – multiple recipients breached ethics despite formal receipt of core values
Local Government Principles of Public Life – ignored, breached, archived
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that ethics are optional.
We do not accept that silence is professionalism.
We do not accept that a child’s welfare can be determined by people who ignored a list of values they claim to uphold.
We do not accept that this was “just a forwarded email.”
We accept it as forewarning.
We archive it as evidence.
⟡ 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.