⟡ SWANK Exhaustion Transcript: The Email Loop Samira Couldn’t Exit ⟡
9–18 February 2024
The Only “Concerning Pattern” Was the Inbox Behaviour of RBKC
I. Introduction: A Referral for a Referral Already Referred
RBKC Social Worker Samira Issa initiated repeated contact regarding a hospital referral from Chelsea and Westminster—based on an incident at St. Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024.
This incident had already been acknowledged.
Already discussed.
Already dismissed.
Polly Chromatic’s responses—initially courteous, later exhausted—formed a pattern of lawful refusal. The only pattern missed was the one in Samira’s inbox.
II. Highlights from the SWANK Transcript
9 February 2024 | 6:51 AM
“They are referring me for the same incident that I’ve already spoken with you about... I am concerned about your mental health... I have asthma and cannot communicate via phone.”
9 February 2024 | 2:59 PM
“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”
9 February 2024 | 3:04 PM
“I am spending time with my kids. I do not want to waste my time with you. Call a lawyer.”
13 February 2024 | Samira responds
Claims it’s a “separate incident.” Suggests another verbal meeting—again.
18 February 2024 | Polly responds
“We will be available at 4pm Wednesday 21st February.”
A brief opening—extended despite institutional exhaustion.
III. Email Behaviour as Procedural Misconduct
Across this correspondence:
Samira claims to have read previous emails
Then requests the same thing again
Refers the same incident as if it were new
Ignores explicit references to asthma-related verbal restrictions
Ignores repeated use of the word harassment
Meanwhile, Polly had:
✔️ Provided documentation
✔️ Asserted her legal representation
✔️ Declined verbal contact on medical grounds
✔️ Replied in writing—more than once
This is not miscommunication.
It’s a refusal to accept written autonomy.
IV. When “We Need to Speak” Becomes Systemic Gaslighting
This was not safeguarding.
It was performative dominance through forced conversation.
It was a refusal to read in order to retain power.
Polly said:
“Please refrain from contacting me again.”
RBKC replied:
“Would you be willing to meet me in person?”
That isn’t misreading.
It’s administrative gaslighting by design.
© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
This isn’t safeguarding—it’s inbox intrusion as institutional ritual.
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy
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.