⟡ “I’m Not Emailing You for Fun”: The Systemic Refusal to Accommodate a Literate Disabled Woman ⟡
Westminster officers and lawyers refused to read. A disabled woman’s lawful adjustment request was treated as noise.
Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ADJUST-026
📎 Download PDF – SWANK_DisabilityAccessFailure_WCC_14-15Dec2024_CompleteSet.pdf
Five consecutive emails requesting written communication as a lawful disability adjustment. All ignored. Only one NHS contact responded.
I. What Happened
Between 14 and 15 December 2024, Polly Chromatic sent five clear, composed emails to safeguarding officers, solicitors, and her NHS liaison. She stated the issue repeatedly: she cannot safely speak for extended periods. Written communication is not a preference — it is a medical and legal necessity.
The emails were not excessive. They were exact. She outlined the solution. She explained her capacity. She documented her decline.
And still — no response.
Council officers said nothing. Blackfords LLP, paid counsel, said nothing. Merali Beedle, whose job was to advise, said nothing.
Only Dr Philip Reid replied. Everyone else performed the modern art of professional disappearance.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Repeated violations of the Equality Act 2010 (reasonable adjustments)
Safeguarding negligence: disabled risk disclosures ignored
Legal abandonment by counsel of record
Gendered silencing of a literate woman via inbox erasure
Refusal to accommodate communication despite explicit requests and clear consequences
This was not a missed message. It was a patterned refusal to read.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the question “Why would I email you for fun?” should shame an entire profession.
Because a disabled woman must not be forced to perform clarity, politeness, and legal awareness in five formats before being acknowledged.
Because Westminster City Council and its legal affiliates do not have a communication problem — they have a control problem.
Because SWANK has seen this before, and will see it again, and will not allow it to disappear quietly.
This was not the absence of advice. It was the suppression of access.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This was a statutory access request.
The silence was operational. The neglect was proceduralised.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was gatekeeping by omission.
SWANK does not accept the pretence that unread emails cancel obligation.
We document what they refuse to answer.
We publish what they try to drown in silence.
Where professionals vanish into policy, SWANK will stand — fluent, furious, and filed.
⟡ 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.