“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
Showing posts with label staged disclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label staged disclosure. Show all posts

Chromatic v RBKC: On the Administrative Drip-Feeding of Public Records by Post


⟡ The Postmarked Delay ⟡
“We have your data. But you’ll need stamps — and patience.”

Filed: 11 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FOI-DELAY-6513
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-11_SWANK_RBKC_FOIResponseDelayNotice.pdf
FOI update from RBKC confirming partial delay and postal delivery of requested documents.

⟡ Chromatic v RBKC: On the Administrative Drip-Feeding of Public Records by Post ⟡
FOI delay, RBKC, postmarked disclosure, data bifurcation, staged transparency, statutory latency, record obstruction

I. What Happened
At 17:31 on 11 June 2025, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea responded to an active Freedom of Information request lodged by Polly Chromatic, confirming that the requested material will be sent by post, in two separate batches— one now, and one within approximately three weeks.

The cause of this delay? A vague reference to “some of the information not being accessible to us yet” — no statutory exemption cited, no legal basis named. Merely a polite declaration of administrative non-possession.

II. What the Update Establishes

  • ⟡ Deferral framed as diligence

  • ⟡ Data fragmentation by logistics — splitting the record to elongate response time

  • ⟡ Use of post as procedural moat — digital denial through analog delay

  • ⟡ Absence of statutory framing — no mention of Section 10(1) of FOIA 2000

  • ⟡ Politeness-as-policy — courteous tone masking structural inertia

This is not disclosure. It is partitioned anticipation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the FOI process is not judged by tone — it is judged by timeliness, transparency, and trust. And when a public authority offers no legal citation, no delivery estimate, and no electronic provision, SWANK registers not receipt — but evasion.

This archive does not wait for the post.
It logs the delay as data.

IV. Statutory Reference

  • Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.10 – authority must respond promptly and within 20 working days

  • No invocation of s.22 (information intended for future publication) or s.36 (prejudice to effective conduct)

  • Potential procedural breach by lack of clarity on segmentation rationale

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t access. It was postage.
This wasn’t disclosure. It was dispersal.
SWANK does not accept fragmented transparency as fulfilment.
We do not regard postal dispatches as modern compliance.
And we will not celebrate delay dressed in clerical charm.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions