When the Police Knock Anyway: A Disabled Mother's Adjustment Ignored by the Metropolitan Force

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-03–MPS–ADJUSTMENT-BREACH

Filed Under: Disability Defiance · Procedural Misfire · Doorstep Drama

---

📍 To:

Professional Standards Department
Metropolitan Police Service
✉ complaints@met.police.uk
Optional CC: contact@policeconduct.gov.uk (IOPC)

---

📌 Subject:

🛑 Formal Complaint – Discriminatory Home Visit in Breach of Disability Adjustments

---

🗓 Date: 3 June 2025

---

🖋 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in velvet-clad fury to report a matter of no small concern: the unlawful and traumatising attendance of Metropolitan Police officers at my home on 3 June 2025, in direct response to a safeguarding report I myself had filed — concerning Ms. Kirsty Hornal of Westminster City Council.

Instead of safeguarding my family, your officers joined the breach.

---

⚠ 1. Breach of Disability Adjustment

I live with multiple disabling conditions, including:

• Eosinophilic Asthma

• Muscle Tension Dysphonia

• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, induced by prolonged institutional harm

As a direct result, I require — and have repeatedly documented — a written-only communication adjustment.

This requirement was:

✔ Included in my safeguarding report
✔ Publicly displayed on my front door, which reads:

Disability Adjustment: Written Communication Only – Do Not Knock

Yet officers arrived without notice, triggering:

• Numbness in my hands

• Tightness in my chest

• A full PTSD episode

• Disruption of my children’s lawful, thriving home education

What should have been protection became re-traumatisation at the hands of the state.

---

⚖ 2. Violation of Legal Protections

Your conduct constitutes a breach of:

🧾 Equality Act 2010

• Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments

• Section 21 – Discrimination arising from disability

📜 Human Rights Act 1998

• Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

The visit did not just fail to protect my rights — it compounded the trauma which gave rise to my original report.

---

✨ 3. Remedies Requested

I request, without performance but with precision:

1. A written apology acknowledging the breach

2. A guarantee that no further in-person police visits will occur without written consent

3. Review and reform of internal systems to ensure disability adjustments are attached to reports and respected

4. Formal referral of this complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

For avoidance of doubt, this incident will be included as evidence in active County Court proceedings under an N1 claim for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation.

Please confirm receipt and provide a case reference.

---

Respectfully, yet not passively,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

When Safeguarding Becomes Strategy: A Shadow Report on Disabled Motherhood Under Siege in the UK

---

👑 SHADOW REPORT SUBMISSION

Filed with Reluctant Majesty to the United Nations Special Rapporteurs
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
and on Violence Against Women and Girls

---

Submitted by:
Miss Polly Chromatic
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 complaints@swankarchive.com
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
🗓 June 2025
📂 Submission Type: Public
⚖ Legal Status: Direct witness, targeted mother, and involuntary expert in bureaucratic brutality

---

🎓 Statement of Purpose

This Shadow Report is submitted not merely in protest, but in documentation of a truth so banal in its cruelty it could only be authored by modern governance.

It addresses the United Kingdom’s systematic breach of its obligations under:

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

This is not a plea. It is a transcribed refusal to be erased, silenced, or procedurally harassed under the guise of “support.”

---

🖋 Executive Summary

I am a disabled woman and mother of four disabled children, all thriving despite the full, clumsy weight of British institutions attempting otherwise.

I was denied care, then punished for complaining.
I asked for written communication; I was given false referrals.
I submitted legal filings; I received safeguarding visits.
I parented lawfully; they called it suspicious.
I educated successfully; they called it isolating.

This submission is not a tale of neglect — it is a museum of precision, chronicling exactly how state systems convert disability and motherhood into targets of suspicion.

---

📉 Key Violations

1. Refusal of Reasonable Adjustments
Written-only communication, clinically mandated, legally protected — systematically denied. Bureaucrats prefer a voice they can interrupt.

2. Retaliatory Safeguarding Interference
Every formal complaint filed was met with escalated intrusion. In Britain, it seems, dissent is a safeguarding risk.

3. Medical Negligence by Design
Asthma erased. Records rewritten. Health needs editorialised to suit the social narrative.

4. Intersectional Stereotyping
A disabled white woman with Black children? Suspicion was preloaded. Gender and race weaponised via bureaucracy.

5. Silencing by Process
I was not just denied services. I was denied the right to document. Denied the right to refuse. Denied the right to speak on my terms.

---

🕰 Chronology of Orchestrated Collapse

• 2015 — Survived domestic violence in Turks & Caicos. Fled. Reported. Ignored.

• 2016 — Harassed by Camden social workers. Fled again.

• 2021 — Returned to London for medical crisis. Diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma.

• 2023–24 — Disability accommodations refused. Legal filings punished.

• Feb 2024 — False safeguarding referral while struggling to breathe.

• 2024 — Filed: N1, N16A, N461. Complaints to NHS, GMC, LGSCO, ICO.

• Apr–May 2025 — Police reports filed. EHRC complaint submitted.

• June 2025 — Shadow Report submitted to the UN.

---

📚 Legal Instruments Cross-Invoked

CRPD
• Article 5 – Non-discrimination
• Article 9 – Accessibility
• Article 13 – Access to justice
• Article 16 – Protection from exploitation and abuse
• Article 21 – Freedom of expression
• Article 25 – Health

CEDAW
• Article 2 – State discrimination
• Article 5 – Gender stereotypes
• Article 12 – Access to healthcare
• Article 15 – Legal capacity

CRC
• Article 2 – Non-discrimination
• Article 3 – Best interests of the child
• Article 12 – Child voice and participation
• Article 24 – Right to health

---

📎 Annexes and Exhibits Available Upon Request

• A. Complaint Letters and Legal Filings — NHS, EHRC, GMC, ICO, LGSCO

• B. Civil and Judicial Documents — N1, N16A, N461

• C. Medical Documentation — Diagnoses, GP letters, safeguarding distortion

• D. SWANK Public Archive — www.swanklondon.com

---

📢 Requested UN Action

1. Formal acknowledgement of UK non-compliance with disability and gender rights frameworks

2. UN inquiry into the weaponisation of safeguarding and social care against disabled mothers

3. Statement on the right of disabled litigants to communicate on paper, not performance

4. Protection of those who write instead of weep

---

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

---

When Safeguarding Becomes Surveillance: A Home Educator’s Dispatch from the Frontlines of Procedural Retaliation

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-23–OFSTED–SAFEGUARDING-BY-THEATRE
Filed Under: Performative Protection · Procedural Vengeance · Education in Exile
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com | 🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 23 May 2025

---

🏛 Subject:

A Formal Complaint to Ofsted

On the Misuse of Safeguarding to Punish Lawful, Disabled Home Educators

---

Dear Ofsted,

Permit me to raise what I wish I could call an anomaly, but which appears instead to be an institutional reflex: the abuse of safeguarding frameworks to discipline disabled, law-abiding home educators for daring to conduct their affairs on their own terms.

I am the mother of four children. They are well. They are educated. They are thriving in a home education environment supported by documentation, structure, and what can only be called excellence. And yet — in 2024 and 2025 — I found myself repeatedly surveilled, summoned, and scandalised under the false banner of child protection, for no reason other than my refusal to attend verbal meetings that contravene my medical care plan.

---

🩺 The “Risk” They Couldn’t Find

Social workers from Westminster and RBKC escalated to CIN and CPP status, not because of risk to children — but because of risk to their authority. Specifically:

• I invoked a written-only communication adjustment, clinically mandated and legally protected under the Equality Act 2010.

• I declined to perform emotional compliance in person.

• I refused the theatre. And for that, the curtain fell — on reason, law, and proportionality.

---

📚 Misuse in Costume:

• Repeated safeguarding referrals despite zero evidence of neglect

• Intrusive visits with no pedagogical basis

• Harmful interference in learning schedules

• Psychological distress induced in my children for the crime of being parented by a disabled adult who keeps immaculate notes

This is not protection. It is harassment in policy drag.

---

⚖️ What I Ask Of You

That Ofsted formally acknowledge the following:

1. That safeguarding powers have been misapplied as punitive tools

2. That disabled home educators face discriminatory escalation for lawful boundary-setting

3. That local authorities be instructed and regulated accordingly, before the idea of home education is entirely colonised by suspicion

---

Let this dispatch serve as both a complaint and a chronicle — of what happens when policy is used not as a shield, but as a stick.

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

---

£2.1 Million for Systemic Harm: NHS Failure, Social Retaliation & the Empire of Inhumanity

---

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-05–ANNEX–NHS-CIVIL-CLAIM–TOTAL-FAILURE
Filed Under: Medical Negligence · Disability Abuse · Judicial Stonewalling · Institutional Retaliation
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com | 🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 5 May 2025

---

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic 
DEFENDANTS:

• Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

• Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

---

⚖️ Summary of Allegations: St Thomas’ Hospital (GSTT)

Incidents:

• A&E attendance in November 2023 and January 2024

Alleged Misconduct:

• 🚫 Denial of emergency asthma treatment

• 🧪 False accusations of intoxication and erratic behaviour — conflating disability symptoms with criminality

• 🎨 Racial profiling of family and assumptions of parental unfitness

• 🚨 Wrongful police involvement, safeguarding threats, and trauma inflicted on children

• 💔 Enduring psychological harm, procedural injustice, and reputational damage

Legal Breaches:

• Clinical Negligence

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 19, 20, 21

• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6, 8

• Procedural Impropriety and Institutional Bias

Damages Claimed:

• Claimant: £500,000

• Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
  💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

• £154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025

• Statutory daily rate: £2,410.96 (County Courts Act 1984, s.69)

---

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic
DEFENDANT: Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Allegations:

• Repeated A&E visits in early 2024

• Staff dismissed life-threatening symptoms and ignored disability communication needs

• Safeguarding referrals made based on bias and misinformation

• Clinical judgement replaced by institutionalised suspicion

Legal Breaches:

• Clinical Negligence

• Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20, 21

• Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 8

• Violation of NHS Constitution

Damages Claimed:

• Claimant: £500,000

• Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
  💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

• £154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025

• Accrues daily at £2,410.96

---

📜 MASTER WITNESS STATEMENT

Polly Chromatic 
Statement of Truth – Submitted in support of N1 Civil Claim

---

I. ✈ Domestic Violence, Exile & Institutional Harassment

• Fled Turks & Caicos in 2015 after severe domestic abuse

• Sought asylum in London; met by Camden Council hostility

• Camden escalated child protection without basis after disclosure

• Escaped while pregnant due to risk of baby removal at birth

• Returned in 2021 after further trauma and near-fatal asthma

---

II. 🏚 Housing & Medical Neglect

• Exposed to toxic sewer gas in Elgin Crescent (June–Oct 2023)

• Hospitalised in respiratory crisis at St Thomas’

• Accused of intoxication, refused care, verbally attacked in A&E

• Police invaded hotel room on son’s birthday, still untreated

---

III. 🧠 Social Services Retaliation & Disability Discrimination

• CPP escalation after forced verbal interaction while voiceless

• Westminster refused written-only adjustment requests

• Repeated illness followed from intrusion and non-accommodation

• Filing of N1 claim led to retaliatory PLO meeting, based on false allegations

---

IV. 🏫 Institutional Harassment by Schools, Councils & Hotels

• False reports by neighbour weaponised by schools

• Innocent bruises used to justify safeguarding escalation

• Hotel (Holiday Inn Kensington) issued noise complaints and police threats during medical crisis

• Forced displacements compounded trauma

---

V. ⚖ Judicial & Procedural Injustice

• Crown Court refuses to honour disability adjustment despite medical documentation (Dr. Rafiq)

• Continues to demand verbal contact

• Judicial review (N461) and injunction (N16A) now filed

---

VI. 💥 Relief Sought

• Acknowledgement of systemic harm

• Compensation for injuries (emotional, medical, procedural)

• Declaration of unlawful discrimination

• Injunctive protection from further institutional retaliation

---

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed: Polly Chromatic
Dated: 5 May 2025

---

The Archive Requested Advocacy. Let History Show Who Answered. — Liberty Has Been Notified

---

⟡ Liberty Contacted. State Retaliation Declared. Support Requested. ⟡

“I am writing as the mother of a disabled family facing active state retaliation through fabricated safeguarding and coordinated misconduct.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LIBERTY/ACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Liberty_RequestForSupport_DisabledFamily_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal request for human rights advocacy submitted to Liberty. The letter outlines documented retaliation by police, NHS trusts, and social workers against a medically disabled family pursuing lawful legal claims. Public interest is no longer theoretical — it’s archived.

---

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a support request to Liberty, the UK’s leading civil rights organisation.

The letter summarises:

• Criminal safeguarding misuse

• Retaliation for disability-based legal filings

• NHS neglect and obstruction of medical care

• Multi-agency coordination across police, social workers, and state services

• Ongoing civil and judicial proceedings totalling £23 million in damages

It also attaches:

• A written-only communication policy

• Evidence-based summaries already submitted to regulators, courts, and journalists

---

II. What the Filing Establishes

• That Liberty is now on record as having received a formal request tied to legal, medical, and human rights abuse

• That the state has retaliated against a disabled mother and four children across institutional boundaries

• That this is not a local dispute, but a systemic failure of care, access, and law

• That support was sought — before the archive simply documented the silence

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the human rights sector must respond when systems collude.
Because disability retaliation is not accidental.
Because asking for support is an evidentiary act when power fails the vulnerable.

This isn’t a whisper.
It’s a procedural record.
Liberty has been notified — and now, Liberty is archived.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that advocacy only applies post-detention.
We do not accept the erasure of state-based harm when the survivor is articulate.
We do not accept that a disabled woman must scream for support to deserve it.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the regulators fail,
We notify the rights groups.
If the rights groups go silent,
We publish that too.
And if no one defends the disabled,
We write it down in font large enough to indict.

---

⟡ 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.