PC-77239: Harassment at the Everychild Contact Centre

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed Police Report – Metropolitan Police Service, Reference TAA-53631-25-0101-IR

Filed: 27 October 2025
Reference: PC-77239
Tier: Core

I. What Happened

On 24 October 2025, between 4:50 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., at the Everychild Contact Centre in Westminster, I attended a supervised contact session prepared, punctual, and cooperative — carrying only trivia cards, fruit, paints, and crayons.

When I asked the centre manager, Juliette Ero, to clarify what items were permitted, she refused to discuss the rules altogether. Instead, she demanded that I sign an unread document, presented mid-session, as a condition of seeing my children.

I explained — several times, and calmly — that I was happy to comply once I had the opportunity to review it properly and that, under my Equality Act 2010 s.20 communication adjustment, such paperwork must be provided in writing and in advance.

Her refusal to engage, combined with the conditional denial of contact, triggered an asthma episode requiring my inhaler. I left the building in composure and recorded the entire exchange on my phone.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The behaviour of Everychild staff constituted:

Harassment and Coercion under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ss.1–2;
Disability Discrimination for failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 ss.20–21 and 29(6);
Procedural Unfairness under the Family Procedure Rules and Articles 6 & 8 ECHR; and
Safeguarding Misconduct, as the incident caused emotional harm by preventing lawful parent-child contact.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the line between procedure and persecution should never be blurred by administrative convenience.
Because “rules” are not rules when they are invented in the corridor five minutes after arrival.
And because every institution that treats disability as defiance should be exquisitely documented — and then exhibited.

IV. Violations

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.1–2
Equality Act 2010 ss.20–21 and 29(6)
Children Act 1989 s.31(9)
Family Procedure Rules, Part 1 – Overriding Objective
Articles 6 & 8 ECHR

V. SWANK’s Position

The Metropolitan Police Service has accepted and registered the report (TAA-53631-25-0101-IR) confirming the matter as harassment, coercion, and disability discrimination.
The attached witness statement (PC-77238) and police record (PC-77239) together establish a clear evidentiary trail of institutional hostility disguised as safeguarding.

The case will remain open within the SWANK London Evidentiary Catalogue until formal confirmation of disciplinary or prosecutorial outcome is received.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection. 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 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, alongside 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 International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards, registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All formatting, typographic, and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

PC-42322: Citation: Chromatic v Westminster [2025] Mirror Ct

THE DISCLOSURE REVIEW BUNDLE

Filed before the Central Family Court, 23 October 2025

Case No: ZC25C50281 – On the Matter of Westminster’s Evidentiary Integrity

Filed: 23 October 2025
Reference: PC-42322
Title: Disclosure Review and Variation of Interim Care Order
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed to: Central Family Court, London
Summary: Application and evidentiary annex exposing documentary contradictions within Westminster City Council’s own records.

I. What Happened

After months of institutional rhetoric about “risk,” the Local Authority’s own disclosure (21 October 2025) revealed something less dramatic: a paper trail of contradictions, recycled phrases, and quiet professional panic.

What was once presented as “concern” now reads as literary overreach with safeguarding letterhead.

II. What the Bundle Establishes

Medical records confirm the children were healthy, stable, and properly treated.
Child-Protection minutes acknowledge improvement before escalation.
No clinician or independent professional recommended removal.
Internal notes contradict the sworn Social Work Evidence Template.

It is therefore unclear whether Westminster was safeguarding children, or safeguarding its narrative.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the evidence now contradicts the evidence — and that paradox belongs in the archive.
This bundle exists so that every future auditor, journalist, and doctoral candidate can observe how bureaucratic confidence can outpace clinical fact.

IV. Violations Highlighted

Duty of candour under public-law standards.
Equality Act 2010, s.20 (failure to accommodate disability).
Article 6 & 8 ECHR (fair hearing and family life).
Procedural integrity in child-protection documentation.

V. SWANK’s Position

That truth, once documented, does not need to shout.
It simply sits—typeset, paginated, and impossible to unsee.

The Disclosure-Review Bundle therefore stands as a mirror, polished in contempt and filed in gold.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com · Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

PC-77490: When the Government Schedules a Hearing and Forgets to Attend Its Own Scandal

⟡ Addendum: On the Supervision Order That Supervised Absolutely Nothing ⟡

Filed: 23 November 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/SUPERVISION-77490
Download PDF: 2020-11-23_Core_PC-77490_TCI_Gov_FChambers_SupervisionOrderNotice.pdf
Summary: A correspondence chain that might have been tragic if it weren’t so exquisitely stupid: the Turks and Caicos Government convenes a Microsoft Teams hearing and then neglects to show up.

I. What Happened

On 23 November 2020, the Turks and Caicos Department of Social Development summoned the legal cosmos for yet another Supervision Order Hearing — a bureaucratic séance held over Microsoft Teams.

At precisely 2:19 p.m., government counsel sent out a meeting link for a 2:30 p.m. hearing — an 11-minute window between notice and nonsense.
When counsel for the mother, Mark Fulford of F. Chambers, joined the meeting, there was no one there.
No judge, no clerk, no social workers — just the echo of procedural incompetence.

Fulford’s email, the only adult voice in the room, is a masterpiece of dry composure:

“We received the link to the hearing about 10 minutes before 2:30. We had no notice prior to receipt of the link that the matter would be for hearing today... When we accessed the link at 2:30pm no one was present.”

It is bureaucratic nihilism distilled — a hearing that neither heard nor occurred.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That the Department of Social Development has perfected procedural ghosting.
• That government hearings now qualify as performance art: scheduled, unattended, and meaningless.
• That colonial administration can be both authoritarian and absent-minded at once.
• That “urgency” and “oversight” are mutually exclusive concepts.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there must exist a permanent record of this administrative vaudeville.
Because silence, when performed by government, is still misconduct — just quieter.
Because this is the jurisprudence of farce: authority that forgets its own performance.

SWANK archived it not as law, but as anthropology — proof that governance in the archipelago has devolved into a spectator sport for the legally literate.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Care and Protection Ordinance (2015) — misunderstood, misapplied, mislaid.
• Judicial Conduct Principles — apparently decorative.
• Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands — violated between Outlook reminders.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 6 — “fair hearing” redefined as no hearing at all.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “justice.”
This is administrative pantomime with broadband issues.

We do not accept bureaucracy without attendance.
We reject the illusion of governance conducted by absentee officials.
We will continue to document every procedural farce until accountability learns how to log in.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every Teams link is an indictment. Every absence, an admission. Every archive, a theatre review of the incompetent.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

PC-9018: When the State Mistakes Its Calendar for Jurisdiction

⟡ Addendum: On Bureaucratic Ritual and the Cult of the Supervision Order ⟡

Filed: 12 November 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/SUPERVISION-9018
Download PDF: 2020-11-12_Core_PC-9018_TCIDeptSocialDev_SupervisionOrderApplication-Precedent.pdf
Summary: A government email chain confirming the absurd: that the Turks and Caicos Islands, in all their colonial magnificence, required a Microsoft Teams meeting to discuss an imaginary crisis.

I. What Happened

The Department of Social Development, having exhausted its supply of baseless allegations and invented emergencies, decided to perform its pièce de résistance — a Supervision Order Application for a mother whose only crime was being articulate.

The correspondence reads like a bureaucratic séance: a dozen officials copying each other into oblivion, invoking Teams links as if summoning legitimacy by hyperlink.
One can almost hear the frantic clatter of keyboards — panic disguised as process.

F. Chambers, CC’d like a witness at a farcical inquest, observed proceedings with the quiet dignity of professionals watching amateurs attempt law.

The date: 12 November 2020.
The subject line: “SUPERVISION ORDER APPLICATION APP-S/9/2020 NOELLE BONNEE ANNEE.”
The tone: half administrative, half incantation.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That bureaucracy will always meet its own failure with another meeting.
• That colonial administration has mastered the art of treating mothering as misconduct.
• That “supervision” has replaced “safeguarding” as the state’s euphemism for punishment.
• That urgency, when divorced from evidence, becomes ritual — a sacrament of stupidity.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is the modern face of empire: digital colonialism, where surveillance is scheduled on Microsoft Teams.
Because one cannot allow bureaucratic hysteria to disappear into inbox oblivion.
Because this correspondence captures the precise sound of institutional panic — a flurry of copied names, an absence of thought, and a meeting that changed absolutely nothing.

SWANK archived this not as evidence of governance, but as anthropology: how the mediocre maintain power through scheduling.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Care and Protection Ordinance (2015) — invoked like scripture, understood like poetry.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 — privacy routinely sacrificed to procedure.
• Data Protection Act — breached by reply-all.
• Equality Act 2010 — unread, untranslated, and unacknowledged.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “safeguarding.”
This is bureaucracy mistaking itself for God.

We do not accept the state’s right to supervise what it cannot comprehend.
We reject the weaponisation of procedure against intellect.
We will continue to record every digital echo of colonial panic until “urgent” emails confess their own irrelevance.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every Teams link is an epitaph. Every CC, a confession. Every archive, an act of exquisite revenge.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

PC-008: When Government Confuses Concealment with Competence

⟡ Addendum: On the Spectacle of Disclosure and the Absence Thereof ⟡

Filed: 9 November 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/FCHAMBERS-008
Download PDF: 2020-11-09_Core_PC-008_FChambers_LackOfDisclosureAndTransparencyDefence.pdf
Summary: A formal letter from F. Chambers to the Department of Social Development — a masterclass in civilised outrage and the legal equivalent of silk gloves slapping an institution across the face.

I. What Happened

Having spent three years performing the bureaucratic ballet known as “investigation without documentation,” the Department of Social Development was politely, exquisitely reprimanded by F. Chambers.

The letter, addressed to one Ms. Ashley Adams-Forbes, reads as a symphony in controlled exasperation.
Each paragraph politely dismantles the Department’s credibility while maintaining the tone of afternoon tea.

The central question, both devastating and rhetorical:

“How can our client be non-compliant with a Care Plan she has never received?”

It is the kind of sentence that should be framed in every government office as a prophylactic against stupidity.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That the Turks and Caicos Department of Social Development has weaponised vagueness.
• That three years of scrutiny yielded not a single piece of paper — a bureaucratic miracle of productivity through absence.
• That “transparency” exists only as punctuation in official letters.
• That F. Chambers, in one page, manages to outclass the entire department.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because it is a rare specimen of professional composure in a sea of colonial buffoonery.
Because when the state lies, one must respond not with emotion but with syntax.
Because every time a lawyer writes like this, the Empire blushes in its sleep.

This document represents the moment the theatre of incompetence met its critic — and lost on style points alone.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Care and Protection Ordinance (2015) — cited, unread, and routinely disobeyed.
• Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands — flouted with bureaucratic grace.
• Natural Justice — treated as an optional accessory.
• Professional Integrity — replaced by photocopy paper and gossip.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not “child protection.”
This is institutional voyeurism written on official letterhead.

We do not accept the state’s allergy to disclosure.
We reject the culture of concealment parading as procedure.
We will continue to archive every syllable of their evasion until transparency becomes involuntary.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every paragraph is diplomacy sharpened to a point. Every signature, an act of restraint disguised as rage. Every archive, an act of intellectual hygiene.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

SWANK :: Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

PC-77239: Harassment at the Everychild Contact Centre

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed Police Report – Metropolitan Police Service, Reference TAA-53631-25-0101-IR

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

PC-42322: Citation: Chromatic v Westminster [2025] Mirror Ct

THE DISCLOSURE REVIEW BUNDLE

Filed before the Central Family Court, 23 October 2025

Case No: ZC25C50281 – On the Matter of Westminster’s Evidentiary Integrity

I. What Happened

II. What the Bundle Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations Highlighted

V. SWANK’s Position

PC-77490: When the Government Schedules a Hearing and Forgets to Attend Its Own Scandal

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

PC-9018: When the State Mistakes Its Calendar for Jurisdiction

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

PC-008: When Government Confuses Concealment with Competence

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position