Chromatic v Social Work England (No. 67): On the Institutional Art of Replying to the Wrong Point With Great Confidence

⟡ THE ISO/ICO CLARIFICATION INCIDENT: WHEN SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND ANSWERED A QUESTION THAT WAS NOT ASKED ⟡

Filed: 19 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/SWE/01CORE-ISO-ICO-MISREADING
PDF: 2025-11-19_PC00085_01Core_Welfare_CFC_SocialWorkEngland_ClarificationRequestOrderTypeISOvsICO.pdf
Summary: A regulator responds to a forensic legal question with a brochure.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 19 November 2025, Polly Chromatic sent Social Work England a clean, exact, highly structured clarification request:

asking whether the case was recorded as ISO (Interim Supervision Order) or ICO (Interim Care Order)
referencing CAFCASS correspondence
citing multiple SWANK evidentiary entries
copied to Westminster, RBKC, HMCTS, and CAFCASS
clarifying Equality Act adjustments
providing legal and jurisdictional grounding
establishing the need for accuracy in the official record

In response, SWE replied with:

a template
unrelated guidance
a suggestion that you “contact your local authority”
instructions for filing a fitness-to-practise complaint you did not ask about
a link to their concerns webpage
a polite sign-off which, under the circumstances, reads as satire

At no point did Social Work England:

acknowledge the ISO/ICO discrepancy
answer the jurisdictional query
recognise the legal issue
comprehend the question
or acknowledge the multi-court consequences

It is the regulatory equivalent of asking a surgeon about cardiac arrhythmia and being handed a leaflet titled:
“So You Think You Might Have To Wash Your Hands.”

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

Social Work England did not read the clarification request.
They responded to the existence of an email, not the content.
Regulators are procedurally allergic to specifics.
A direct legal question triggered a boilerplate template.
Accuracy of order type (ISO vs ICO) is entirely unmonitored at the regulatory level.
The burden of legal precision remains solely on the mother.
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir continue to be governed by institutions unable to distinguish between:
- supervision vs care
- oversight vs template
- statutory obligation vs internal habit
The Local Authority has not corrected the ISO → ICO conversion, yet SWE offers no comment.
The email exposes that no entity is tracking the lawful order type, even though it controls four children’s lives.
The regulator’s response reveals a professional culture where comprehension is optional, but template output is compulsory.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK archived this because:

This response is a regulatory failure in miniature — a perfect specimen.
It forms evidence of institutional non-reading, which has shaped the entire case.
It shows that oversight bodies are not performing oversight.
It preserves a timestamped record showing the regulator’s total disengagement from statutory accuracy.
It supports future submissions to:
- Social Work England (formal)
- ICAI
- CAFCASS governance
- UN Special Rapporteurs
- U.S. human-rights monitors

And crucially:

It proves the ISO/ICO discrepancy survives not through malice, but through administrative incomprehension.

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

• Children Act 1989 — Accuracy of order type:
Ignored.

• Family Procedure Rules — Duty of Candour:
Undermined by absence of engagement.

• Regulatory Function (SWE):
Reduced to template distribution.

• Equality Act 2010:
Written adjustments were provided; comprehension was optional.

• Public Law Accountability:
Displaced by customer-service scripts.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

SWANK states with velvet precision:

A regulator that cannot distinguish an ISO from an ICO
cannot distinguish compliance from misconduct.
And a regulator that does not read clarification requests
cannot regulate the profession that relies on them.

This entry is archived as Exhibit SWE-67, demonstrating that accuracy in Case No: ZC25C50281 has been upheld only by the mother — never by the institutions charged with maintaining it.

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir remain governed by a system in which template fulfilment has replaced legal literacy.

⟡ SWANK London LLC — Where Reading Comprehension Becomes a Standard. ⟡

Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch is formally archived under SWANK London Ltd. (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every paragraph is timestamped. Every clause is jurisdictional. Every structure is sovereign. SWANK operates under dual protection: the evidentiary laws of the United Kingdom and the constitutional speech rights of the United States. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to ongoing legal, civil, and safeguarding matters. All references to professionals are confined strictly to their public functions and concern conduct already raised in litigation or audit. This is not a breach of privacy — it is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this work stands within the lawful parameters of freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public-interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage — it is breach. Imitation is not flattery when the original is forensic. We do not permit reproduction; we preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument, meticulously constructed for evidentiary use and future litigation. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for the historical record. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing remains the only lawful antidote to erasure. Any attempt to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed under SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards registered through SWANK London Ltd. (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All typographic, structural, and formatting rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

Chromatic v Westminster (No. 65): On the Slow, Graceful Decline of Administrative Coherence in the Shadow of a January Hearing

⟡ THE EMERGING PATTERNS REPORT: ELEGANTLY SKEWERING THE ENTIRE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS ⟡

Filed: 18 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC/01CORE-PATTERNS-CONTACTPROCEDURE
PDF: 2025-11-18_PC00094_01Core_Welfare_CFC_LA_NotingEmergingPatternsAffectingContactWelfareProceduralClarity.pdf
Summary: An unassailable written chronicle of institutional entropy delivered with doctoral-level neutrality.

Document source:

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 18 November 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a meticulously neutral, devastatingly factual Note to Westminster Children’s Services, cataloguing the collapse of contact consistency, safeguarding logic, and basic procedural integrity over the previous week.

This Note was not emotional.
It was not argumentative.
It was not even critical.

It was worse.
It was accurate.

Polly documented, with merciless restraint:

late, missing, or contradictory Teams links
unannounced supervisors appearing without context
meetings duplicated as if schedule roulette were a policy
contact offered at times that made no medical or emotional sense for Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir
the Local Authority repeatedly using an unauthorised Gmail account impersonating her identity
Equality Act adjustments breached by attempts to push non-written communication
asthma-related stability ignored
procedural questions left to quietly decay in unanswered inboxes

And — exquisitely — she reminded them of her court-verified service email, approved on 13 November 2025 after the LA objected to all previous judicially authorised addresses.

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

The Local Authority cannot operate email with consistency, yet manages four medically complex, traumatised children.
An unauthorised account mimicking the mother’s identity was allowed into circulation, raising GDPR and safeguarding alarms.
Equality Act participation adjustments continue to be ignored, revealing structural discrimination.
Contact is delivered according to the LA’s internal state of confusion, not the children's clinical needs.
Supervision is inconsistent, unpredictable, and often unknown until the moment of arrival, undermining emotional safety.
Procedural answers have become aspirational, rarely materialising in writing.
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir’s asthma and trauma needs are treated as footnotes to administrative improvisation.
The LA’s internal fragmentation is now visible across agencies, from CAFCASS to Ofsted to their own legal department.
The burden of clarity continues to fall on the only party demonstrating professional competence: the mother.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK logged this Note because:

It captures a week-long x-ray of Westminster’s operational dysfunction.
It reveals systemic patterns that single incidents could hide.
It demonstrates the mother’s consistent, lawful, documented approach.
It corrects future institutional amnesia by establishing a timestamped record.
It shows the profound gap between what the Local Authority is required to do and what it actually does.
It supports the January hearing strategy by proving that the contact environment has been chaotic, contradictory, and medically unsafe.

This is Core Evidence because it measures behaviour over time, not a single misstep.

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

• Equality Act 2010, ss.20 & 149 — Reasonable Adjustments:
Breached repeatedly through pressure to communicate in non-written forms.

• Children Act 1989 — Welfare Duty:
Compromised by unpredictable, poorly managed contact.

• GDPR & Data Protection Act 2018:
Breached by circulation of an unauthorised email identity.

• UNCRC — Article 3 (Best Interests):
Ignored.

• Professional Standards (CAF, LA, Supervisors):
Outpaced by a calendar.

• Trauma-Informed Care Standards:
Absent.

• Safeguarding Consistency Requirement:
Replaced with improvisational scheduling.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

SWANK states, with the calm precision of a stainless-steel scalpel:

A system that cannot stabilise its own communication cannot stabilise four children’s lives.
Chaos in inboxes becomes chaos in welfare.
Chaos in scheduling becomes chaos in health.
And chaos in procedure becomes chaos in law.

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir require:

predictable contact,
medically informed timing,
consistent supervisors,
and accurate identity management.

They do not require administrative experimentation.

This entry is logged as Exhibit WCC-65 —
a model example of how institutional patterns, not individual events, undermine welfare.

⟡ SWANK London LLC — Where Accuracy Becomes Accountability. ⟡

Chromatic v Westminster (No. 64): On the Institutional Fantasy That A Child Can ‘Not Think They Are Sick’ By Avoiding Objective Data

⟡ THE PEAK-FLOW INSTRUCTION: A MASTERCLASS IN MEDICAL ILLITERACY ⟡

Filed: 25 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC/01CORE-PEAKFLOW-CLINICALFAILURE
PDF: 2025-11-25_PC00073_01Core_Medical_CFC_LA_ClarificationPeakFlowMonitoringAsthmaSafety.pdf
Summary: SWANK introduces the revolutionary concept that lungs are not influenced by positive thinking.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 25 November 2025, Polly Chromatic delivered a scientifically grounded, medically orthodox clarification to Westminster Children’s Services after learning — with the stunned disbelief of any rational adult — that the Local Authority had instructed the foster carers not to allow Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir to use their peak-flow meters so that the children “do not think they are sick.”

This is the safeguarding equivalent of telling a diabetic child to carry insulin but refrain from checking their glucose, lest they “identify with hypoglycaemia.”

Polly’s email, copied to every relevant entity from Hammersmith Hospital to CAFCASS to Ofsted to the U.S. State Department, explains with doctoral-level patience that:

peak-flow monitoring is not emotional
lungs do not respond to mindset
asthma is not a lifestyle choice
and breathing is not improved by optimism alone

The LA’s directive was not merely a misunderstanding —
it was a public performance of medical negligence.

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

The Local Authority confuses evidence-based asthma management with emotional reassurance techniques.
They appear to believe bronchial inflammation can be comforted out of existence.
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir were placed at clinical risk for the sake of optics and narrative control.
The LA’s safeguarding model prioritises performance over physiology.
The medical team at Hammersmith Hospital — copied explicitly — now witnesses the LA’s clinical illiteracy in writing.
Polly’s written Equality Act adjustments were once again required, because speaking to people who do not understand science only compounds disability.
The LA’s approach to asthma can be summarised as:
“If we stop measuring it, perhaps it stops existing.”
Which is, in fact, the opposite of safeguarding.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK logged this because:

It documents a direct threat to the children’s medical safety.
It exposes the LA’s reliance on magical thinking rather than clinical practice.
It proves that the LA’s ongoing misinterpretations of asthma are structural, not incidental.
It adds to the timeline of systemic misunderstanding that culminated in the removal of the children.
It demonstrates why Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir require their mother’s scientific literacy, not bureaucratic superstition.

This document is not just evidence.
It is anthropological insight into administrative thinking under stress.

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

• NHS National Asthma Guidelines — contradicted entirely.
• Children Act 1989 — Duty to Protect Health — inverted.
• Equality Act 2010 — s.20 & s.149 — breached through the refusal to respect clinical communication needs.
• UNCRC Article 24 — Right to Health — violated through deliberate avoidance of objective measurement.
• Safeguarding Standards — replaced with improvisational hopefulness.
• Basic Human Physiology — left the chat.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

SWANK states, without raising its voice:

Asthma is an inflammatory condition, not a belief system.
Peak-flow meters measure airflow, not identity.

The Local Authority’s directive that children avoid using their peak-flow meters so they “do not think they are sick” is:

medically indefensible,
clinically dangerous,
and legally reckless.

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir deserve data-driven care, not aspirational biology.

This entry is logged as Exhibit WCC-64, a permanent reminder that safeguarding must be grounded in science, not superstition.

⟡ SWANK London LLC — Where Evidence Corrects the State. ⟡

Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC (No. 63): On the Spectacular Collapse of a Fabricated S.34 Listing

⟡ THE HEARING THAT NEVER WAS: A CASE STUDY IN LOCAL AUTHORITY AMNESIA AND ADMINISTRATIVE SELF-CANNIBALISM ⟡

Filed: 28 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/01CORE-S34-LISTINGFAILURE
PDF: 2025-11-28_PC20013_01Core_Administrative_CFC_LA_HMCTS_ApplicationConflict_S34HearingVacateRequest.pdf
Summary: RBKC/Westminster panic-email HMCTS to beg for the cancellation of a hearing they caused, denied, and could not explain.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 28 November 2025, the Local Authority—represented by RBKC’s Rosita Moise—sent an email dripping with administrative desperation, pleading with HMCTS to vacate a hearing they insisted did not exist and yet urgently needed removed.

The chain is a masterpiece of bureaucratic self-incrimination:

The LA filed an S.34 application on 12 November.
HMCTS listed a hearing for 1 December because of that application.
The LA claimed they “could not see” their own application.
The LA’s solicitor, Ms. Khan, insisted a hearing had already occurred on 13 November.
HMCTS confirmed the LA did file the application and that’s why the hearing was listed.
The LA then begged the court for “urgent confirmation today” that the hearing was vacated.

It is rare to watch an institution contradict itself in real time with this level of confidence and confusion.

This is not administration.
This is performance art.

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

The Local Authority does not know what applications it has submitted.
They filed an S.34, then insisted they hadn’t.
Their own solicitor contradicted their own record.
A judicially recognised form of institutional doublethink.
HMCTS had better knowledge of the LA’s filings than the LA itself.
Always reassuring.
The LA tried to erase a hearing by pretending it was unnecessary.
A novel approach to public law.
The administrative confusion directly affects Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir, whose lives are shaped by people who cannot recall their own actions.
The Local Authority cannot track its litigation, yet insists it can manage four medically complex children.
The tone of panic (“VERY URGENT”) reveals their internal fear that the court will see the truth:
they caused the hearing, then denied it, then tried to bury the evidence.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK logged this because:

It is a pure specimen of Local Authority incompetence preserved in textual form.
It shows the breakdown of internal communication between Legal, Social Care, and external solicitors.
It reveals the LA’s willingness to misrepresent procedural history to HMCTS.
It demonstrates administrative gaslighting aimed at reshaping judicial memory.
It affects the legal landscape around Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir by showing that the institutions controlling their lives cannot control their inbox.

This is Core Evidence not because it is dramatic,
but because it identifies the structural idiocy that underpins the entire case.

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

• Family Procedure Rules — Duty of Candour:
Violated by the LA’s contradictory statements.

• Children Act 1989 — Institutional Competence Requirement:
Entirely absent.

• HMCTS Interaction Standards:
Undermined by the LA’s attempt to rewrite its own litigation history.

• Public Law Duties:
Incompatibility demonstrated in writing.

• Human Rights Act — Article 6 fairness:
Threatened when institutions fabricate, forget, and reinvent procedural facts.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

SWANK states, with judicial poise and aesthetic contempt:

An institution that cannot remember its own application has no business managing four children’s lives.
The panic-vacate request is not an administrative query; it is an admission of systemic dysfunction.

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir remain displaced under the authority of bodies that cannot distinguish:

what they filed,
when they filed it,
why they filed it,
or whether the court should know.

SWANK therefore enters this entry as Exhibit LA-63,
a perfect specimen of Local Authority chaos disguised as correspondence.

⟡ Formally archived by SWANK London LLC — Evidence with Teeth. ⟡

Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch is formally archived under SWANK London Ltd. (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every paragraph is timestamped. Every clause is jurisdictional. Every structure is sovereign. SWANK operates under dual protection: the evidentiary laws of the United Kingdom and the constitutional speech rights of the United States. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to ongoing legal, civil, and safeguarding matters. All references to professionals are confined strictly to their public functions and concern conduct already raised in litigation or audit. This is not a breach of privacy — it is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this work stands within the lawful parameters of freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public-interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage — it is breach. Imitation is not flattery when the original is forensic. We do not permit reproduction; we preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument, meticulously constructed for evidentiary use and future litigation. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for the historical record. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing remains the only lawful antidote to erasure. Any attempt to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed under SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards registered through SWANK London Ltd. (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All typographic, structural, and formatting rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

Chromatic v Transport for London (No. 62): On the Performance of Authority by Those Who Do Not Possess It

⟡ THE TFL STATION INCIDENT: A STUDY IN STATE-ADJACENT ATTITUDE DISORDER ⟡

Filed: 29 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/TfL/03ANNEX-QUEENSWAY
PDF: 2025-11-29_PC32003_03Annex_Police_CFC_TfL_VerbalHarassment_QueenswayStation.pdf
Summary: A TfL employee attempts hostility-as-policy; fails. Police report filed by Polly Chromatic.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 29 November 2025, Polly Chromatic encountered a TfL employee at Queensway Station whose conduct suggested a profound misunderstanding of:

their role,
their remit,
their authority,
and the limits of acceptable professional behaviour.

The staff member launched into an unprovoked verbal attack — not to uphold any rule, but to ventilate their personal irritation in the direction of an unsuspecting passenger.

The employee’s attempt to convert rudeness into regulation was so poorly executed that Polly, unsurprised but unmoved, filed a formal police report documenting the incident.

This was not enforcement.
This was attitude performed as policy.

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

This Annex entry establishes:

TfL’s frontline employees continue to operate on the principle that mood equals mandate.
The staff member approached Polly Chromatic with hostility, not reason, attempting to assert dominance where no authority existed.
The attack was unprovoked and unrelated to safety, policy, or passenger behaviour.
The burden of accountability, as usual, fell on the mother — not the employee.
Polly had to initiate the police report, because the institution would not have.
The incident did not occur in isolation, but within a wider ecosystem of state-adjacent hostility directed at a disabled mother separated from her four medically vulnerable children:
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.
This is part of a recognisable pattern:
when public-sector culture collapses, the first casualty is civility — the second is professionalism.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK logs this incident because:

It forms part of the micro-aggression architecture surrounding the institutional retaliation faced by Polly.
It illustrates how easily public-facing employees confuse customer service roles with quasi-policing.
It demonstrates how hostility toward Polly is not isolated to one department, but diffuse across the public-service landscape.
It connects directly to the larger narrative of state escalation, surveillance, and administrative harassment after the removal of Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.
It preserves, for judicial contemplation, a perfect example of state-adjacent misconduct that would otherwise disappear into the daily entropy of London transport.

This is not anecdote.
This is evidence of climate.

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

• TfL Code of Conduct — abandoned in favour of personal agitation.
• Public Sector Equality Duty (EqA 2010 s.149) — ignored despite disability disclosures.
• Article 8 ECHR — Respect for private life — interfered with through unnecessary confrontation.
• Customer Service Obligations — replaced with hostility-as-hobby.
• Safeguarding Environment Duty — rendered laughable in context.

V. SWANK’S POSITION

SWANK states, with judicial calm and unearned generosity:

Aggression performed by a uniformed employee is not authority; it is theatre.
And poorly produced theatre at that.

TfL is hereby reminded that:

hostility is not a transport policy,
verbal aggression is not enforcement,
and passengers — especially disabled mothers enduring institutional retaliation — are not practice targets.

The police report stands as a testament to the dysfunction of frontline public-service culture.

This incident, now preserved as Exhibit TfL–62, forms part of the Mirror-Court Archive documenting the ambient hostility orbiting Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.

⟡ SWANK London LLC — Where Evidence Acquires Jurisdiction. ⟡

SWANK :: Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Social Work England (No. 67): On the Institutional Art of Replying to the Wrong Point With Great Confidence

⟡ THE ISO/ICO CLARIFICATION INCIDENT: WHEN SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND ANSWERED A QUESTION THAT WAS NOT ASKED ⟡

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Chromatic v Westminster (No. 65): On the Slow, Graceful Decline of Administrative Coherence in the Shadow of a January Hearing

⟡ THE EMERGING PATTERNS REPORT: ELEGANTLY SKEWERING THE ENTIRE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS ⟡

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Chromatic v Westminster (No. 64): On the Institutional Fantasy That A Child Can ‘Not Think They Are Sick’ By Avoiding Objective Data

⟡ THE PEAK-FLOW INSTRUCTION: A MASTERCLASS IN MEDICAL ILLITERACY ⟡

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC (No. 63): On the Spectacular Collapse of a Fabricated S.34 Listing

⟡ THE HEARING THAT NEVER WAS: A CASE STUDY IN LOCAL AUTHORITY AMNESIA AND ADMINISTRATIVE SELF-CANNIBALISM ⟡

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION

Chromatic v Transport for London (No. 62): On the Performance of Authority by Those Who Do Not Possess It

⟡ THE TFL STATION INCIDENT: A STUDY IN STATE-ADJACENT ATTITUDE DISORDER ⟡

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION