⟡ “I Asked for the Records of My Children’s Removal. They Asked for a Utility Bill.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Safeguarding. It Was Bureaucracy Weaponised Against a Parent Who Filed in Writing.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/SAR-CHILDREMOVAL-DPA40524913
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_Westminster_SubjectAccess_RemovalRecords.pdf
Formal Subject Access Request (SAR) acknowledgement from Westminster City Council regarding the 23 June 2025 removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without notice, court participation, or medical continuity.
I. What Happened
At 10:18 AM on 24 June 2025, Westminster City Council acknowledged receipt of a detailed Subject Access Request filed by Polly Chromatic. The request sought all records, communications, meeting notes, and risk assessments regarding the removal of her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — under an Emergency Protection Order issued without warning.
Westminster reclassified the request under the Data Protection Act 2018, denying processing under FOIA 2000. They demanded:
Proof of identity
Proof of address
Full names and dates of birth of the children (already removed)
They further warned that the request would be closed after three months if the parent failed to comply with ID requests — despite the parent being a known, disabled litigant with active civil and JR proceedings.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Westminster refused FOIA processing despite clear public interest grounds
The SAR was delayed through excessive documentation demands
The requester was already known to the authority — both legally and procedurally
The children were removed without giving their mother access to court or case materials — and now the council demands she provide them
The request exposed the council’s intent to obstruct documentation of its own actions
This wasn’t lawful data protection. It was jurisdictional stonewalling by document demand.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because transparency isn’t conditional.
Because children removed from your care shouldn’t require proof of their names to unlock a record.
Because the authority had no trouble finding her on 23 June — yet now pretends she must prove her existence.
Because when silence follows state force, paperwork becomes protest.
Because the archive does not wait 30 days. It files today.
IV. Violations
Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Improper reclassification of public-interest request
Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–50 – Delay via technical obstruction and failure to consider proportionality
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disregard for known disability and access barriers
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Denial of access to family-related data post-removal
UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from legal documentation pathways
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t identity verification. It was strategic delay to stall institutional accountability.
This wasn’t compliance. It was compliance theatre — staged for the purpose of denial.
This wasn’t privacy. It was a record of evasion — and now, it's been archived.
SWANK hereby logs this SAR correspondence as a procedural document of obstruction.
They asked for the children's birthdates.
We’re asking for the names of everyone who authorised the harm.
⟡ 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.