⟡ Follow-Up to the Mold Factory: Now with Barristers Involved ⟡
“Complicity in discriminatory safeguarding practices, and neglect of ethical duty.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/UK/LEGAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_FollowUp_BSB_LegalMisconductSafeguarding.pdf
A formal escalation to the Bar Standards Board (BSB), extending the Ministry of Moisture’s findings into the legal profession. Not just social workers. Now, the barristers are under review.
I. What Happened
On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a written follow-up to the Bar Standards Board, building directly on her previously filed brief: The Ministry of Moisture: How Social Work Became a Mold Factory.
This submission was not rhetorical.
It named potential breaches of the BSB Handbook, including:
Misuse of court procedure
Discriminatory collusion in safeguarding proceedings
Neglect of ethical duty to vulnerable families
The letter requested guidance on whether the findings met the threshold for investigation and expressed full willingness to pursue formal reporting pathways.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Safeguarding misuse now traced into legal chambers
Barristers not just observers, but facilitators of rights violations
Courtroom silence as professional negligence
Disability, trauma, and poverty reframed as prosecutable through procedure
The BSB is now formally on record — silence becomes complicity
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because structural harm doesn’t stop at the courtroom door.
It’s passed through it — by people in robes, under oath, with signatures that change lives.
SWANK is not a rhetorical project. It’s a jurisdictional archive.
This document makes that crystal clear: we’re not just documenting what happened. We’re escalating who allowed it.
The Ministry of Moisture was the diagnosis.
This is the referral.
To the Bar.
To the record.
To the very people trained to know better — and paid to do nothing.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept the legal profession as a passive corridor for systemic abuse.
We do not accept that “representation” means repetition of bias.
We do not accept barristers who file sealed orders and call it justice.
SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the court is humid,
If the brief is silent,
If the safeguarding script reads like theatre —
We escalate.
We file.
We name.
And if necessary,
We report the lawyers, too.
⟡ 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.