🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY
The Erratic Allegation Inquiry
Or, When a Disabled American Mother Asked British Social Workers to Define the Crime of Breathing Differently
Filed: 31 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-ERRATIC-SUBJECTIVE-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-31_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_ErraticBehaviourPretext.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic formally questions the meaning of “erratic” — and exposes it as institutional projection.
I. What Happened
At precisely 12:32pm on 31 October 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a concise but devastating email to Westminster Children’s Services and their legal and medical satellites.
It was titled: “Erratic behaviour”
The body of the email? Minimal.
The meaning? Monumental.
“I wish I knew what I did that was so ‘erratic’ so I can learn what British culture expects. I still have no clue what I did wrong. It’s very suspicious.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a forensic dismantling of character-based safeguarding.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster social workers have made vague, undefined behavioural claims
That the mother has received no specific explanation or evidence of these claims
That “erratic” is being used as a coded, subjective label for being American, disabled, and non-compliant
That the refusal to define the term is not neutral — it is tactical
To describe someone’s protected behaviour as “erratic” without explanation is not concern.
It is a smear with a lanyard.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because “erratic” is a safeguarding Rorschach test — a word that reveals more about the observer than the observed.
Because when institutions refuse to define what they’re accusing you of, it means they don’t want accountability — they want leverage.
Because this email is not just a question — it is a trap laid in velvet:
→ If they respond, they reveal the absurdity.
→ If they ignore it, the record holds the silence.
And because Polly Chromatic didn’t protest. She archived.
IV. Violations
Article 8 ECHR – Interference with family life based on vague or undisclosed allegations
Safeguarding Code of Conduct – Use of subjective and discriminatory terminology
Equality Act 2010 – Treating disability-related communication or behaviour as instability
Discrimination Based on National Origin – Framing cultural difference as risk
Procedural Impropriety – No factual foundation provided for interventions made
V. SWANK’s Position
We consider this email a surgical strike against the performative objectivity of British safeguarding.
Polly Chromatic didn’t raise her voice. She asked a question.
And in asking, she exposed the entire edifice:
That what British social workers often call “erratic” is just
→ confident speech,
→ documented refusal,
→ foreign cadence,
→ and non-submission.
Let the record reflect:
Until Westminster can define “erratic” without revealing their own prejudice,
the erratic ones are wearing badges — not breathing differently.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.