🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Court of Annotated Vengeance for the Minimised and Misunderstood
Lost in Translation
In Re: Cultural Deflection, Verbal Contempt, and the Bureaucratic Humiliation of a U.S. Child
📁 Metadata
Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-VERBALCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_ArgumentNotes_ContemptAndCulturalGaslighting.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten notes revealing contemptuous speech, cultural minimisation, and racialised undermining in UK foster oversight.
I. WHAT HAPPENED
This handwritten entry, titled “Argument”, records an exchange between Regal and two adults — “Del” and “Shopna” — who, in the course of attempting to justify foster restrictions, instead confirmed their own prejudices and disdain.
Regal documents:
Del claiming that saying “you can’t eat properly cuz you’re 10” is appropriate
Shopna dismissing the exchange by saying: “You’re from America so a lot of the stuff we say might get lost in translation”
Insults hurled at Regal, including:
“We learnt Regal doesn’t care about his siblings”
“You don’t know how to travel on a bike”
A chilling declaration that Kingdom and Heir “have to listen to instructions whether they’re true or not”
Demands that Regal not advocate for Kingdom
And finally, Shopna “threatening to have ‘care’ happen”
Each line indicts the cultural minimisation, silencing, and psychological coercion imposed on this child — whose only crime was honesty and asthma.
II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES
This is not miscommunication. This is contempt dressed as correction.
Racialised Discrediting: “You’re from America” is used to invalidate not just vocabulary, but entire lived experience.
Verbal Insults from Authority: The adults make sweeping judgments about Romeo’s character and capabilities — a practice that is psychologically unsafe and procedurally indefensible.
Truth Doesn’t Matter: A direct quote — instructions must be followed “whether they’re true or not.” This is the clearest expression of institutional authoritarianism imaginable.
Advocacy Silenced: Regal is told not to support his brother. This is the criminalisation of compassion.
Coercive Threatening Language: “Care” is framed as a punitive consequence, proving that “safeguarding” is being used as leverage — not support.
III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT
Because Regal wrote it down — and we must respond.
Because too often, children’s memories of humiliation are ignored as exaggeration, their voices downplayed as adolescent exaggeration, or their feelings dismissed as cultural difference.
But here, we have the transcript.
And the transcript condemns them.
This page is not a misunderstanding.
It’s a confession — from the adults, about themselves.
IV. VIOLATIONS
Equality Act 2010 – s.19 & s.27 – Indirect discrimination and victimisation based on nationality and protected characteristics
Children Act 1989 – s.22 & s.47 – Verbal harm from carers and misuse of safeguarding powers
UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 19 – Failure to respect child voice and protection from psychological violence
ECHR Article 14 + Protocol 1 – Discriminatory treatment under child welfare provisions
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) – Dereliction of duty to uphold non-discrimination in all services
V. SWANK’S POSITION
You cannot gaslight a child out of their birthright.
Regal is not “confused” — he is articulate, coherent, and appallingly aware of what is being done to him.
And we are not confused either.
These comments — made in institutional settings — are not just inappropriate; they are legally actionable.
This entry is now permanently archived, indexed under “Verbal Humiliation in Placement Settings,” and will be submitted to the Family Court, CAFCASS, and international observers.
Regal asked, “What advice could you give me?”
We respond:
You’re already doing it. You wrote it down.
Now we file. Now they answer.
Filed in articulate vengeance and procedural elegance,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com