“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

In Re: Nutritional Deprivation and Discriminatory Restriction in Foster Placement by Shopna


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

Asthma Is Not a Behavioural Problem
Documenting Nutritional Neglect, Xenophobic Humiliation, and Medical Endangerment in Foster Care

Filed:
2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-LOI-0825-SHOPNAABUSE
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_LOI_ShopnaFosterAbuse_PoliceReport.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Police report filed against foster carer “Shopna” details medical neglect, cultural humiliation, and targeted abuse of disabled U.S. citizen children in UK state care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

Between 23 June 2025 and 2 August 2025, four children — all U.S. citizens with eosinophilic asthma — were placed into the care of a foster carer named Shopna by Westminster Children’s Services. The police report now filed against her includes testimony and documentation from Regal, aged 16, and his younger siblings.

The children report:

  • Being told “you can’t eat because you’re 10”

  • Bans on water bottles and pencils upstairs

  • Derogatory remarks such as “you’re from America”

  • Restriction of emotional and private expression

  • Deliberate sabotage of asthma management through dehydration, stress, and movement suppression

All four children were homeschooled, medically vulnerable, and accustomed to a structured, loving environment. They were not removed due to risk of harm — but rather following a disproven medical allegation (now subject to NHS resolution).

What followed was not protection. It was calculated degradation.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The Shopna Police Report confirms:

  • Medical Negligence: Refusing water to asthmatic children is not discipline — it is bodily endangerment.

  • Nutritional Abuse: Denying food to a child on the basis of age is not structure — it is psychological violence.

  • Xenophobic Mockery: Saying “you’re from America” to dismiss or punish a child is not neutral — it is racialised othering.

  • Suppression of Dignity: Banning pencils and privacy denies children the right to expression, education, and processing trauma.

  • Patterned Control: These behaviours are not incidental. They reflect an entrenched culture of institutional dehumanisation.

This is no longer anecdote. It is archive.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because the authorities failed to act.

Because Westminster knowingly placed U.S. citizen children in a home that banned writing, hydration, and dignity — and called it “care.”

Because the family submitted journal entries to court, the police, Social Work England, and international bodies — and yet the foster placement continued.

Because when safeguarding is weaponised, justice must be documented with velvet teeth.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(a): Welfare and developmental needs

  • Children and Families Act 2014, s.19: Duty to promote physical and emotional well-being

  • Equality Act 2010, s.20–21: Disability-related neglect, failure to accommodate

  • Article 8, ECHR: Private and family life

  • Articles 12 & 13, UNCRC: Freedom of expression, right to be heard

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  • Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000: Discriminatory public service provision

V. SWANK’S POSITION

We do not redact the voices of children because the state finds them inconvenient.

We do not remove our velvet gloves because the carers had government badges.

We do not mislabel chronic asthma as misbehaviour.
We do not permit racism to be repackaged as “rules.”
We do not tolerate abuse masked as British childcare.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was a programme.

We file it now — in gold, in fury, in defiance — as an affidavit of failure and a testament to resistance.

Filed in honour of Regal, Kingdom, Prerogative and Heir —
and the paper they weren’t allowed to hold.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: Hornal (Emotional Abuse, Asthma Neglect, and the Theatre of Safeguarding)


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

The Authority That Mocked Asthma
A Police Report on Kirsty Hornal’s Dereliction of Safeguarding Duty, Filed in Maternal Fury

Filed: 2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-POLICEREPORT-0825-HORNAL
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_ChildAbuseNeglect.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Police report filed against Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for emotional abuse, medical neglect, and disability-related discrimination.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 2 August 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal police report to the Metropolitan Police against Kirsty Hornal, a Westminster Children’s Services social worker, for her role in what is now alleged to be a pattern of institutional child abuse.

The report outlines incidents spanning from 23 June to 2 August 2025, during which:

  • Contact was obstructed between a mother and her four U.S. citizen children;

  • Medical protocols were ignored, especially concerning asthma management;

  • Children were mocked for their nationality and subjected to psychological destabilisation;

  • Basic emotional expression and communication were suppressed;

  • And parental rights were actively undermined by procedural hostility and coercive interference.

The police report is not speculative. It is grounded in handwritten evidence from the children themselves, particularly Romeo, whose journal entries have since been submitted to the Family Court and safeguarding authorities.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The following safeguarding breaches and statutory crimes are implicated:

  • Psychological abuse through controlling behaviour and emotional suppression;

  • Neglect of asthma-related care;

  • Disability discrimination via bans on water bottles, physical activity, and routine;

  • Procedural sabotage of parental contact and therapeutic intervention;

  • Nationality-based mockery — “You’re from America, you don’t know how to ride a bike” was not a joke, but an indictment.

This is not child protection.
It is cross-border state violence in the guise of procedure.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because safeguarding laws do not exist to shield the perpetrators.

Because the medical needs of disabled children are non-negotiable, not discretionary.

Because Romeo’s journal is not art therapy — it is admissible evidence.

And because when a mother files a police report, it is not hysteria.
It is history correcting itself.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to promote welfare and respect wishes

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory treatment on grounds of disability and nationality

  • Article 8, ECHR – Breach of the right to family life

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Suppression of child voice and expression

  • Safeguarding Breach – Emotional harm under local authority supervision

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This police report will not gather dust.
It will gather precedent.

SWANK asserts that the actions of Kirsty Hornal constitute institutional misconduct, child endangerment, and breach of both UK and international legal norms.

The children deserve better.
The system deserves exposure.
And the perpetrators deserve formal legal consequence.

Filed under Article 10, velvet wrath, and maternal defence,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: Conditional Timelines and the Weaponisation of Guardian Talk


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Registry of Procedural Hostility and Velvet Archiving

Guardianship as Leverage

In Re: Psychological Conditioning and Timeline Manipulation in Child Welfare Talk

📁 Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-GUARDIANCOERCION
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_GuardianThreat_TimelineManipulation.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A casual "first talk" reveals the calculated timeline pressure placed on children via threat of noncompliance.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This handwritten note — modest in appearance, monumental in implication — logs a statement made to Regal during what was framed as his “first guardian talk.”

It reads:

  • “Expect for it to be 6 months.”

  • “Things take longer if mom doesn’t comply.”

Presented not as insight, but as inevitability.

This is not a conversation — it’s programming. And Regal recorded it.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

This exchange strips away any claim to child-centered care:

  • Predetermined Outcome: The “6 months” statement confirms that decisions are not responsive but pre-scheduled, regardless of the child’s needs or voice.

  • Conditional Timelines: The child’s experience is made contingent on the mother’s supposed “compliance” — a phrase designed to enforce parental submission rather than assess best interest.

  • Psychological Weaponisation: The entire exchange is designed to condition Regal into associating time, delay, and discomfort with his mother’s resistance — effectively pitting the child’s emotional state against the parent’s advocacy.

Let us be clear:
This is not support.
This is coercive calendarism.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because these statements are not benign.
They are operational strategy masquerading as reassurance.

What may seem like a simple timeline update is, in fact, an inducement to internalise blame and to penalise procedural resistance.

This is the bureaucratic version of: “Your mom is the reason you’re still here.”
And it is as cruel as it is calculated.

Regal didn’t miss it.
SWANK didn’t either.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22(3A) – Failure to promote the child’s welfare without conditional influence

  • UNCRC Article 12 & 13 – Undermining child autonomy by weaponising family dynamics

  • ECHR Article 8 – Infringement of private and family life through psychological manipulation

  • Public Law Safeguarding Framework – Misuse of child contact to pressure parental compliance

  • Procedural Misrepresentation – Positioning timeline delays as the fault of the mother, not institutional pace

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Let the record show:

This is not the sound of a supportive guardian.
This is the sound of a script — one designed to shift emotional burden onto a mother advocating for justice, and a child forced to decode betrayal in plain sight.

We archive it here not just as a complaint, but as a chronicle of subtle cruelty, etched in biro, dressed as casual advice.

This entry now forms part of the procedural retaliation master index.

Filed in annotated fury and archival exactitude,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: Foster Verbal Assault, Cultural Dismissal, and Regal’s Right to Dignity


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Court of Annotated Vengeance for the Minimised and Misunderstood

Lost in Translation

In Re: Cultural Deflection, Verbal Contempt, and the Bureaucratic Humiliation of a U.S. Child

📁 Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-VERBALCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_ArgumentNotes_ContemptAndCulturalGaslighting.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Handwritten notes revealing contemptuous speech, cultural minimisation, and racialised undermining in UK foster oversight.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This handwritten entry, titled “Argument”, records an exchange between Regal and two adults — “Del” and “Shopna” — who, in the course of attempting to justify foster restrictions, instead confirmed their own prejudices and disdain.

Regal documents:

  • Del claiming that saying “you can’t eat properly cuz you’re 10” is appropriate

  • Shopna dismissing the exchange by saying: “You’re from America so a lot of the stuff we say might get lost in translation”

  • Insults hurled at Regal, including:

    • “We learnt Regal doesn’t care about his siblings”

    • “You don’t know how to travel on a bike”

  • A chilling declaration that Kingdom and Heir “have to listen to instructions whether they’re true or not”

  • Demands that Regal not advocate for Kingdom

  • And finally, Shopna “threatening to have ‘care’ happen”

Each line indicts the cultural minimisation, silencing, and psychological coercion imposed on this child — whose only crime was honesty and asthma.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

This is not miscommunication. This is contempt dressed as correction.

  • Racialised Discrediting: “You’re from America” is used to invalidate not just vocabulary, but entire lived experience.

  • Verbal Insults from Authority: The adults make sweeping judgments about Romeo’s character and capabilities — a practice that is psychologically unsafe and procedurally indefensible.

  • Truth Doesn’t Matter: A direct quote — instructions must be followed “whether they’re true or not.” This is the clearest expression of institutional authoritarianism imaginable.

  • Advocacy Silenced: Regal is told not to support his brother. This is the criminalisation of compassion.

  • Coercive Threatening Language: “Care” is framed as a punitive consequence, proving that “safeguarding” is being used as leverage — not support.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because Regal wrote it down — and we must respond.

Because too often, children’s memories of humiliation are ignored as exaggeration, their voices downplayed as adolescent exaggeration, or their feelings dismissed as cultural difference.

But here, we have the transcript.
And the transcript condemns them.

This page is not a misunderstanding.
It’s a confession — from the adults, about themselves.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Equality Act 2010 – s.19 & s.27 – Indirect discrimination and victimisation based on nationality and protected characteristics

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22 & s.47 – Verbal harm from carers and misuse of safeguarding powers

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 19 – Failure to respect child voice and protection from psychological violence

  • ECHR Article 14 + Protocol 1 – Discriminatory treatment under child welfare provisions

  • Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) – Dereliction of duty to uphold non-discrimination in all services

V. SWANK’S POSITION

You cannot gaslight a child out of their birthright.

Regal is not “confused” — he is articulate, coherent, and appallingly aware of what is being done to him.

And we are not confused either.

These comments — made in institutional settings — are not just inappropriate; they are legally actionable.

This entry is now permanently archived, indexed under “Verbal Humiliation in Placement Settings,” and will be submitted to the Family Court, CAFCASS, and international observers.

Regal asked, “What advice could you give me?”

We respond:

You’re already doing it. You wrote it down.
Now we file. Now they answer.

Filed in articulate vengeance and procedural elegance,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments:

In Re: The Upstairs Pencil Ban – Power, Surveillance, and Procedural Absurdity


🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
A Velvet Register of Procedural Misuse and Dignity Theft

No Pencils Upstairs

In Re: Restriction as Routine – Regal’s Observations on Foster Control

📁 Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-ROMEOCONTROL
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_Addendum_Journal_FosterControlSummary.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A child’s handwritten inventory of institutional restriction, deprivation, and power misuse in foster care.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

This page — a segment titled “Foster Talk” — was authored by Regal, age 16, in the quiet of restriction.

It details a list of controlling and, in some cases, developmentally harmful prohibitions placed on him and his siblings, including:

  • Telling Kingdom (age 10) that he can’t eat because he’s 10

  • Not allowing them to bring their water bottles upstairs

  • Not allowing them to bring pencils upstairs

  • Being told to “be respectful” to siblings without cause

  • Ambiguous bathroom restrictions (“above the upstairs bathroom rule”)

Each line is quietly devastating — a record of being watched, silenced, denied, and patronised.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

These aren't just odd household quirks. They are institutional symptoms:

  • Nutritional Humiliation: Withholding food based on age isn't child development — it's mockery in procedural form.

  • Hydration Restriction: Dangerous for children with asthma, particularly those with eosinophilic asthma (as all four siblings are diagnosed).

  • Stationery Suppression: Banning pencils upstairs violates educational dignity and emotional expression.

  • Passive Discipline Language: “Being respectful to siblings” — weaponised ambiguity used to pre-frame children as disobedient.

  • Toilet Surveillance Culture: The bathroom reference, vague but repeated across multiple journal entries, signals privacy erosion and bodily control.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because this entry was never intended for legal scrutiny — which makes it all the more damning.

It is unfiltered, unprompted, and uncoached.

This is how Regal has begun to interpret “care”: a regime of “don’ts,” of power without explanation, of needs ignored, rights denied, and voice erased.

In a system where journaling is banned and pencils are contraband, the very existence of this page is resistance.

We logged it because someone must.

IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22C – Inappropriate and developmentally unsafe placement

  • ECHR Articles 3, 8, 14 – Degrading treatment, interference with private life, discrimination on the basis of disability and nationality

  • UNCRC Articles 12, 13, 17, 31 – Failure to respect child voice, education, and recreation rights

  • Health & Safety Standards – Failure to meet basic hydration and asthma-management responsibilities

  • Equality Act 2010 – s.20–21 – Indirect discrimination through provision of services

V. SWANK’S POSITION

You cannot teach “respect” by denying dignity.
You cannot foster trust while rationing water and pencils.
You cannot call this child protection.

This document is hereby archived under the Regal Journal Evidentiary Series and will be submitted to the Family Court, CAFCASS, and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Disability and Arbitrary Detention.

Every line is evidence.
Every stroke of Regal’s pen is a legal act of survival.

Filed in legal reverence and procedural revolt,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.

No comments: