⟡ “If You Refuse to Read, You Forfeit the Right to Help”: Adjustments Denied, Emails Ignored ⟡
When a disabled woman wrote for her life, Westminster's professionals ghosted her — and called it care.
Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ADJUST-026
📎 Download PDF – SWANK_DisabilityAccessFailure_WCC_Reid_14Dec2024.pdf
Two disability adjustment requests ignored by Westminster City Council and legal counsel. One NHS liaison responded. No one else did.
I. What Happened
On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote not once, but twice, to Westminster City Council officers, solicitors, and NHS contacts — outlining, with excruciating courtesy, the reality of a communication-limiting disability. Verbal speech made her sick. Email was essential. Phone was possible, if brief.
What she received in response was: nothing.
No acknowledgement. No reply. No professional integrity.
Lawyers failed to respond at all, despite being instructed repeatedly to communicate by email. A council safeguarding officer, allegedly engaged, left the access need unrecorded. One lone NHS consultant — Dr Philip Reid — read the emails and acted. Everyone else abandoned the conversation while feigning participation.
The result? She turned to police reports. Not as escalation, but as the only remaining format that anyone seemed to respect.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Formal breach of Equality Act 2010, s.20 (failure to make reasonable adjustments)
Neglect by omission: adult safeguarding duties disregarded through silence
Systemic exclusion of disabled participation via “format failure”
Gendered tone-policing of written requests as somehow excessive, or non-urgent
Institutional cowardice: when clarity exposes risk, retreat into non-responsiveness
This is not communication breakdown. It is communication control.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because too many disabled people are rendered inadmissible — not by law, but by inbox.
Because email is not optional when the alternative is medical collapse.
Because local authorities have developed a taste for erasure via non-engagement, especially when the witness is articulate, disabled, and female.
Because this is not Westminster’s first instance — nor will it be its last — of deleting a woman’s voice under the guise of “process.”
SWANK recorded it because the “reasonable adjustment” was not misunderstood. It was refused.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This was a statutory request. It was ignored.
This was a legal duty. It was evaded.
This was not safeguarding. It was silence, weaponised.
SWANK does not accept the reduction of disability to inconvenience — nor the obliteration of email as somehow excessive when male professionals can’t be bothered to read.
We will document every refusal to respond. Every opt-out. Every ghost.
Where institutions erase the record, SWANK is the record.
⟡ 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.