ADDENDUM: INSTITUTIONAL BIAS AS RESEARCH FAILURE
A Mirror Court Reflection on Confirmation Bias and Procedural Collapse
Metadata
Filed: 2 September 2025
Reference Code: SWANK–CONFIRMATIONBIAS–FAILURE
PDF Filename: 2025-09-02_SWANK_Addendum_ResearchFailure.pdf
Summary (1 line): An indictment of Westminster’s safeguarding theatre as nothing more than failed research riddled with confirmation bias.
I. What Happened
Professionals — social workers, assessors, and affiliated staff — behaved not as neutral guardians of welfare but as bad academics, armed with pre-baked hypotheses and a Local Authority script. Instead of inquiry, they pursued confirmation. Instead of neutrality, they staged validation theatre.
II. What the Addendum Establishes
Absence of Neutral Inquiry
No impartiality, no observation, only a foregone conclusion: the mother must be wrong, the bundle must be right.
Confirmation Bias
Facts favourable to Westminster inflated; inconvenient evidence deflated, erased, or re-branded as pathology. This is research malpractice masquerading as safeguarding.
Suppression of Counter-Evidence
Medical history, disability adjustments, and children’s expressed wishes conveniently vanished from the evidentiary table — an exclusionary tactic unworthy of both science and law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the Court and the world must recognise that what has been presented as “assessment” is simply failed research, stitched together with confirmation bias. This is not neutrality but narrative-laundering, procedurally unsafe by design.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – ss.20–21, s.149: failure to accommodate disability, breach of Public Sector Equality Duty.
Children Act 1989 – s.1: welfare principle subverted by biased evidence.
ECHR – Article 6: denial of fair process; Article 8: disproportionate interference with family life.
UNCRC – Article 12: children’s voices silenced; Article 3: best interests ignored.
V. SWANK’s Position
The methodology has collapsed. These “assessments” are procedurally unsafe and legally void. To continue relying on them is not child protection but research fraud repackaged as safeguarding.
Closing Declaration
The Mirror Court finds that confirmation bias has converted safeguarding into pseudo-study — ethically void, legally unsafe, and aesthetically bankrupt. Retaliation may be their method; documentation is mine.
Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person