“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 safeguarding weaponisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safeguarding weaponisation. Show all posts

I Complied. You Retaliated. Let’s Correct the Record.


⟡ “My Health Is Not a Deferral Tactic. It’s a Statutory Right.” ⟡
A legally grounded letter correcting Westminster’s narrative: the issue is not non-engagement — the issue is their refusal to understand disability law.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOResponseClarification.pdf
Formal written response from Polly Chromatic (Noelle Meline) to Kirsty Hornal, affirming legal compliance with PLO via written-only communication, supported by medical documentation and statutory protection.

I. What Happened

In this letter, dated 23 April 2025, the claimant formally responds to Westminster Children’s Services’ attempts to reframe her disability-mandated communication format as “non-cooperation.” The letter asserts that written replies — submitted with complete evidence bundles on 15 April — are not only lawful, but medically necessary under the Equality Act 2010.

Key points include:

  • Confirmation that the claimant has fully complied with the PLO process

  • Reiteration that all communication must be written-only due to clinically documented conditions

  • Legal justification for recording social worker visits

  • Clarification that ongoing threats of escalation are discriminatory and procedurally inappropriate

The letter also affirms the claimant’s willingness to continue engagement — provided it aligns with medical limitations, legal protections, and basic human decency.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Written communication is not a preference — it is a medically validated, legally protected adjustment

  • The parent has complied with all PLO requests through written submissions, including video, educational records, and legal declarations

  • Mischaracterising medical adjustments as defiance is a breach of both law and ethics

  • Threats to escalate proceedings in response to lawful communication amount to procedural harassment

  • The family’s wellbeing is being actively endangered by Westminster’s refusal to adapt

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not just a letter — it is a strategic evidentiary shield. SWANK filed it to document how Westminster officials, faced with a clear legal adjustment, chose instead to diminish, distort, and deny. When the authority in charge of safeguarding refuses to safeguard the process itself, the danger does not come from the parent — it comes from the institution.

SWANK archived this letter to:

  • Establish written proof of full legal engagement

  • Highlight the coercive misuse of safeguarding frameworks when disability is present

  • Prepare grounds for regulatory complaints to Social Work England, EHRC, and the Ombudsman

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 15 (discrimination arising from disability)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair process), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

  • Social Work England Professional Standards – Ignoring communication boundaries, escalating unfairly

  • Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm via procedural mismanagement

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Misrepresentation of lawful recording

V. SWANK’s Position

This letter stands as a model of procedural clarity, legal assertiveness, and trauma-informed resistance. Westminster Children’s Services is hereby placed on record: the law does not bend for bureaucratic convenience. A disabled parent invoking her rights is not evasive — she is simply not available for further abuse.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • A written acknowledgment from WCC that written communication is the official and lawful format

  • Ceasefire on threats of non-compliance

  • A public audit of internal decision-making tied to PLO and disability engagement

⟡ 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:

When Bureaucracy Erases Trauma by Calling It a Policy Violation

 📩 SWANK Dispatch: My Children Were Sexually Abused by a State Doctor—But You’re Threatening Truancy

🗓️ 6 August 2020

Filed Under: DSD misconduct, homeschool retaliation, sexual abuse by physician, safeguarding trauma, truancy misuse, shifting policy excuse, administrative gaslighting, unlawful property entry, complaint commission, public school rejection

“You threatened to take my children
despite the fact that I submitted my curriculum.
But when a doctor exposed them
in front of nine adults,
you didn’t even file a report.”
— A Mother Who Has Survived State Surveillance in Multiple Countries

This letter to Willette A. Pratt, Senior Investigative Officer at the Complaints Commission, outlines a catalogue of procedural violence by the Department of Social Development (DSD), including:

  • Sexual abuse of her sons at the National Hospital by a doctor during an unconsented “safeguarding” exam

  • Multiple unannounced visits and forced interrogations with no explanation

  • Illegal property entry, including dismantling her fence

  • No reports ever given, violating legal and ethical obligations

🧠 I. Bureaucracy Over Trauma

Despite the trauma:

  • The family was told their homeschooling wasn’t approved

  • They were declared truant

  • The mother was threatened with child removal unless she submitted:

    • Written homeschool request

    • Curriculum

    • Child ages

    • Her qualifications

    • Socialisation evidence

    • An annual teacher assessment

All of this after the Department had acknowledged her homeschooling approval in 2017 through Mark Garland.

🧬 II. A Mother’s Timeline of Survival

The letter gives a concise migration history that highlights her effort to protect her family:

  • Moved between the USA, Grand Turk, Providenciales, and London to escape trauma

  • Survived robbery, housing collapse, deportation separation, mould exposure, and state harassment

  • Homeschools four children in the face of constant obstruction

🧾 III. What She Asked For

  • Direct communication from Edgar Howell at the Department of Education

  • A transparent copy of the homeschool policy

  • Respect for the agreement made with Mark Garland

  • Legal clarity and consistency

SWANK Summary:

She was following the rules.
They kept changing the rules.
And now they want to punish her
for surviving what their systems inflicted.


No comments:

The Law Says I Get a Copy — So Why Am I Still Asking?

 📜 SWANK Dispatch: You’ve Had 3.5 Years to Investigate. Where’s the Report?

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: unlawful investigation, DSD misconduct, homeschool discrimination, failure to provide report, TCI legal breach, safeguarding abuse, sexual abuse by doctor, AG request for intervention, Ashley Forbes inaction, complaint ignored

“Three and a half years.
Still no report.
Still no reason.
Still harming my children
while claiming to protect them.”
— A Homeschooling Mother Still Waiting for the Law to Apply to Her Family

In this formal letter to Attorney General Rhondalee Braithwaite-Knowles, Polly Chromatic requests urgent legal advice and intervention. After 3.5 years of ongoing harassment by the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Grand Turk, and a sustained refusal to issue a legally required report, she is calling on the highest legal authority to enforce compliance with the law.

⚖️ I. The Legal Breach

Turks and Caicos law — specifically the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015, Section 17(6) — states that a report must be provided to:

  • The parent of the child, and

  • The child, if 12 or older and capable of understanding

Unless there is a clear danger or pending criminal investigation — neither of which applies in her case.

And yet:

No report has ever been provided.
No legal justification has been given.

🧸 II. The Harm Documented

  • The case began with bias against homeschooling, despite approval from Mark Garland in 2017

  • Her children experienced:

    • Sexual abuse by a doctor at the National Hospital

    • Emotional and psychological harm from repeated unjustified inquiries

  • Communications with Ashley Adams-Forbes have gone unanswered

  • A complaint to the Complaints Commissioner was also ignored

🧑‍⚖️ III. What She Asked the Attorney General

  • Legal advice on how to compel DSD to comply with statutory law

  • Action from the AG to enforce Section 17(6)

  • Oversight to halt the prolonged harassment

SWANK Summary:

She followed the law.
They followed her.
And now — she’s asking the Attorney General
to follow through.

Labels: unlawful investigation, homeschool discrimination, safeguarding weaponisation, legal rights violation, DSD misconduct, no investigation report, AG intervention request, child trauma, doctor abuse, complaint unanswered

No comments: