“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

They Retaliated for Asking for Access. — A Case Built for Public Record, Now Delivered to the Press


⟡ Media Briefing Filed: Multi-Agency Abuse, Medical Harm, Legal Proof ⟡

“I am a disabled mother who has been repeatedly targeted for retaliation after requesting lawful disability adjustments and submitting formal legal complaints.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MEDIA/BRIEFING-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_MediaBriefing_MultiAgencyAbuse_DisabledFamilyEvidence.pdf
A formal media briefing sent to investigative journalist Maeve McClenaghan. Encloses legal and medical evidence of multi-agency retaliation, fabricated safeguarding, and the weaponisation of care systems against a disabled family.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., issued a formal press briefing to journalist Maeve McClenaghan at The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The briefing includes:

  • A synopsis of multi-agency harm involving social workers, police, and NHS Trusts

  • Summary of civil, regulatory, and criminal filings already on record

  • Disclosure of written-only medical adjustments repeatedly violated

  • Evidence of safeguarding abuse, negligence, and institutional collusion

  • Direct reference to Equality Act breaches and formal regulatory escalation

This is not an informal tip-off.
It is a procedural act of public witness.

II. What the Briefing Establishes

  • That a public-interest reporter has been formally notified

  • That the case involves disabled children, regulatory evasion, and state-based retaliation

  • That enclosed materials meet the threshold for investigation, not summary dismissal

  • That silence in response will also become part of the record

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when legal complaints vanish into mailboxes,
And medical accommodations are treated as invitations for harm,
And safeguarding is weaponised by those meant to protect —

The press must be notified.
Not because we hope — but because we file.
If power won’t acknowledge the truth,
SWANK sends it to someone who will.

And if no one listens,
We publish the silence with the same level of proof.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that media interest must be begged.
We do not accept that evidence must scream to be seen.
We do not accept institutional collusion as untouchable.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the regulators fail,
We brief the press.
If the press ignores,
We archive the notice.
And if no one acts —
We remain the record.

⟡ 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:

The Complaint Is Filed. The Press Has Been Told. — £23 Million, Multiple Defendants, and a System That Called It Safeguarding


⟡ Public Notice Filed: £23M Complaint Over Criminal Safeguarding Abuse ⟡

“This isn’t safeguarding. It’s systemic misconduct, now quantified in damages and submitted in law.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PRESS/RELEASE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PressRelease_DisabledFamily_23MComplaint_SafeguardingAbuse.pdf
A formal press release sent to journalist Maeve McClenaghan summarising a £23 million legal complaint over coordinated safeguarding abuse, collusion, and systemic retaliation against a disabled family. Sent under lawful access terms. Received, now archived.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., issued a formal press release to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, summarising a multi-claim, multi-defendant action rooted in:

  • Criminal safeguarding misuse

  • Disability-based retaliation

  • Obstructed access to medical care

  • Police-social work collusion

  • Coordinated regulatory delay

The press release:

  • Names multiple institutional actors under active complaint

  • Cites the Equality Act 2010, Fraud Act 2006, Human Rights Act 1998, and Children Act 1989

  • Notes ongoing referrals to Social Work England, Metropolitan Police DPS, and the IOPC

  • Asserts a total claim value of £23 million, filed under sworn evidence

  • Reiterates a written-only communication policy as legally mandated and repeatedly violated

II. What the Press Release Establishes

  • That the legal claim exists, is filed, and is quantifiable

  • That the journalist has been directly and lawfully placed on notice

  • That there is public evidence of pattern-based institutional harm

  • That no future ignorance of the case can be claimed in good faith by media or regulators

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because journalism is part of the system.
Because silence from the press protects the same institutions that weaponised safeguarding.
Because this isn’t outreach — it’s recordkeeping, timed to the moment legal action becomes public.

This release isn’t a pitch.
It’s an invitation to truth — and a declaration of jurisdictional standing.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that press interest should follow only after harm has ended.
We do not accept media neglect when systems collapse in slow motion.
We do not accept that a family must suffer in silence while their abusers wear lanyards.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the press will not investigate,
We log that too.
If justice is ignored,
We publish the price.
And if £23 million is not enough to merit coverage,
We will make it archival — and impossible to delete.

⟡ 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:

Final Notice to Sarah Newman – Safeguarding Abuse, Disability Discrimination, and Legal Liability | 22 May 2025


📜 Final Declaration of Procedural Hostility and Disability-Based Misconduct

A Notice of Institutional Liability and Personal Accountability

To:
Ms Sarah Newman
Executive Director, Bi-Borough Children’s Services
Westminster City Council & Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Date: 22 May 2025

Re: Immediate Cease and Desist – Retaliatory Safeguarding and Unlawful Interference

Dear Ms Newman,

This correspondence serves as a formal and final notice: any further attempt by you or your agents to initiate safeguarding procedures, encrypted contact, uninvited home attendance, or verbal communication with me or my children shall be construed, without ambiguity, as:

  • Sustained institutional harassment

  • Procedural retaliation targeting a civil litigant

  • Direct disability discrimination

Each of the above constitutes actionable misconduct under the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, and established common law doctrines of abuse of power and failure of public duty.

You are now personally and professionally on notice. This warning will not be repeated.

⚖️ Legal and Evidentiary Architecture (Already Active)

You are reminded of the following binding structures:

  • Formal CIN refusal filed on lawful and medical grounds

  • N1 Civil Claim, N16A Injunction, and N461 Judicial Review already submitted

  • Multiple police reports filed (Refs: BCA-10622, BCA-25130, ROC-10237)

  • Formal complaints lodged with the LGSCO, ICO, NHS Trust, and GMC

  • A written-only communication policy established and enforceable under the Equality Act 2010

Any deviation from these frameworks constitutes a deliberate act of defiance against court-linked and disability-adjusted boundaries.

🛑 Cease and Desist Instructions – Non-Negotiable

You are hereby instructed to:

  1. Cease all contact not explicitly written and not facilitated through legal representation

  2. Cease all safeguarding initiatives unless lawfully mandated by a court of record

  3. Refrain from referring my children to any third-party service without express court-authorised cause

  4. Acknowledge institutional and individual liability for any further contact or reprisal

This shall be treated as a formal declaration of non-consent to all further interaction outside judicial or written context.

⚠ Consequences of Breach – Without Further Notice

In the event of noncompliance, I will:

  • File a personal civil claim for negligence, victimisation, and discrimination against you individually

  • Submit the breach to the High Court, appending all related misconduct to my active judicial filings

  • Publicly release the full chronology as part of a protected whistleblower archive under public interest immunity

Failure to respond will be construed as wilful negligence and escalated as such.

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

Refusal of CIN Visit – Medical Grounds, Legal Filings, and Police Reports | 22 May 2025


🛑 Formal Refusal of CIN Visit Request

A Declaration of Legal Non-Consent and Medical Prohibition

Issued: 22 May 2025
To: Mr Sam Brown & Ms Kirsty Hornal
Westminster Children’s Services

Subject: Disability Adjustment, Judicial Protections & Active Police Proceedings

✒️ Opening Rebuke

Dear Mr Brown and Ms Hornal,

Consider this your formal and final notice: I do not and cannot consent to any in-person visits, uninvited verbal engagements, or contact of any kind pertaining to your CIN involvement request.

Such approaches are:

  • Medically contraindicated

  • Legally impermissible

  • Procedurally coercive and discriminatory

This communication constitutes a legal refusal underpinned by binding medical evidence and statutory protection. You are now on record.

🩺 Medical Standing – Non-Negotiable Adjustments

I am protected by formally diagnosed conditions, including:

  • Eosinophilic Asthma – aggravated by stress and poor air quality

  • Muscle Tension Dysphonia – rendering verbal communication functionally impossible

  • Complex PTSD – specifically trauma-linked to institutional intrusion, including social services

These diagnoses are fully documented in the attached psychiatric assessment by Dr Irfan Rafiq (26 November 2024), which explicitly prescribes written-only communication as a reasonable and legally binding adjustment under UK disability law.

To ignore this is not a service error. It is discrimination with medical consequences.

⚖️ Judicial and Criminal Proceedings – Active and Escalating

You are not engaging with a "service user." You are attempting contact with a person who has initiated multiple police reports and civil actions against your department, including but not limited to:

📁 Police Reports on File:

  • BCA-10622-25-0101-IR – Disability-based coercion (Ms Hornal)

  • BCA-25130-25-0101-IR – Retaliatory safeguarding after protected disclosure

  • BCA-25249-25-0101-IR – Sustained coercion, medical neglect, fabricated risk

  • ROC-10237-25-0101-IR – Procedural harassment by Mr Brown

📜 Civil Filings in Motion:

  • N1 Claim – Disability discrimination & safeguarding abuse

  • N16A Injunction – Prohibiting procedural interference

  • N461 Judicial Review – Legality of safeguarding escalation under challenge

Your insistence on CIN contact in this context is astonishingly reckless and legally indefensible.

🧾 Legal Position – Boundaries Now Formalised

Any further attempt to initiate:

  • CIN visits

  • Verbal or encrypted contact

  • Telephone calls or unscheduled engagement

...shall be treated as:

  • Harassment

  • Breach of medical directive

  • Violation of statutory rights under the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, and common law duties of care and proportionality

You are, by law, now barred from making contact outside permitted channels.

📫 Permitted Modes of Contact – Nothing More, Nothing Less

You may address me only via:

  • ✉ Unencrypted email

  • 📮 Postal letter (Royal Mail only – no couriers, no doorstep appearances)

All other contact methods — verbal, encrypted, or physical — are deemed unlawful and will be documented accordingly.

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

Police Report – Coercive Email Threat by Kirsty Hornal (WCC), Filed 2 June 2025 | ROC-10979-25-0101-IR


🗞️ Police Report Filed: Coercive Threat Issued by Public Official in Breach of Disability Law

Metropolitan Police Reference: ROC-10979-25-0101-IR

Date Submitted: 2 June 2025 at 14:01
Subject of Report: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services

📍 Formal Title for Archive and Parliamentary Index

Metropolitan Police Online Report: Coercive Threat by Local Authority Officer in Contravention of Disability Adjustments – 31 May 2025

💬 Stylised Summary – For Dignified Circulation

On 2 June 2025, a formal police report was filed by Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., documenting a coercive and retaliatory communication from Ms Kirsty Hornal, a social worker operating under Westminster City Council.

The report details an unsolicited and psychologically aggressive email dated 31 May 2025, in which Ms Hornal, following a series of active legal claims and formal complaints, threatened to escalate matters by “liaising with legal teams” to determine “whether this needs to be taken to court.”

This communication is identified as:

  • Unprovoked

  • Retaliatory in nature

  • In direct breach of a medically mandated, written-only communication protocol

  • Issued amidst formal judicial scrutiny of Westminster Children’s Services

The email has been reported as part of a broader pattern of procedural hostility, institutional abuse of process, and targeted discrimination against a disabled mother and civil litigant.

🩺 Contextual Grounds Provided to Police Authorities

The report included extensive evidentiary and medical context, such as:

  • Documented diagnoses of eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and complex PTSD, all of which render unsolicited contact medically unsafe

  • Prior safeguarding interference involving racialised assumptions and targeting of a mixed-heritage family

  • Westminster’s well-documented failure to comply with written communication accommodations

  • A wider pattern of institutional complicity, including previous failures by police and social services to act impartially or lawfully

🧛‍♀️ Named Individual and Institutional Web

Suspect: Ms Kirsty Hornal
Address on file: 4 Frampton Street, Westminster
Affiliation: Westminster Children’s Services
Associates also under scrutiny:

  • Mr Sam Brown – Safeguarding Officer

  • Ms Sarah Newman – Executive Director

  • Ms Rhiannon Hodgson – Management Liaison

🩸 Key Allegations Included in the Report

  • Issuing a coercive threat via electronic communication

  • Violation of a disability-adjusted communication protocol

  • Causing psychological trauma and respiratory exacerbation

  • Retaliation following formal legal and ombudsman complaints

  • Intersectional discrimination on the basis of disability and race

This report has now been appended to an active judicial archive, including:

  • Civil Claim (N1)

  • Injunction Request (N16A)

  • Judicial Review (N461)

  • Multiple regulatory complaints across SWE, LGSCO, ICO, NHS Trusts, and GMC

It shall also be published as part of the SWANK Public Archive documenting State-Enabled Retaliation Against Disabled Parents.


No comments: