⟡ “I’m Not Emailing You for Fun”: Disability Law, Institutional Neglect, and the Exit from Dialogue ⟡
After six ignored access requests, one disabled woman stops asking. The law remains. The inboxes are archived.
Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ADJUST-026
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_EMAIL_WCC-LAWYERS_Disability-Access-Refused.pdf
Six emails sent between 14 December 2024 and 9 January 2025 requesting lawful disability adjustments. No response from Westminster or legal counsel.
I. What Happened
Over a 27-day period, Polly Chromatic submitted six detailed communications to Westminster City Council officers, her legal representatives, and NHS liaison Dr Philip Reid. Each email clearly outlined the same point: she cannot speak for more than a few minutes at a time due to disability. Written communication is not a preference — it is her only lawful means of access.
She received no replies from the council. No acknowledgement from legal counsel. No indication that her statements had been read.
The final message, sent 9 January 2025, marked a shift. She disengaged. She announced her decision to stop repeating herself for the benefit of a system committed to not listening. The request for “advice” became rhetorical. The duty to accommodate became archived.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Serial breaches of the Equality Act 2010, s.20–21
Complete failure by Westminster officers to acknowledge or act on disability communications
Legal malpractice: solicitors refused to engage in the client’s only accessible format
Gendered minimisation of written communication as “excessive” or “for fun”
Procedural erasure through administrative non-response
This is not poor coordination. It is tactical neglect.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because asking for adjustments six times is not excessive — it is judicial patience.
Because when professionals refuse to read, they forfeit the right to intervene.
Because silence is not neutrality — it is discrimination with a paper trail.
Because a disabled woman forced to write her own exit deserves more than being framed as “difficult.”
SWANK files this as both record and refusal. A dossier of lawful clarity, met with institutional disdain.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This was a legal request.
The silence was strategic.
This wasn’t a delay — it was a decision.
SWANK does not accept the professional practice of making disabled women disappear by ignoring their format.
We document when they don't respond.
We publish when they pretend they didn’t read.
We record the end of dialogue — and file it, beautifully.
⟡ 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.