⟡ “Read or Don’t, But I’ll Record It Either Way”: Disability Access as Disruption ⟡
Three emails. Three refusals to accommodate. What Westminster won’t reply to, SWANK will publish.
Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/ADJUST-026
📎 Download PDF – SWANK_DisabilityAccessFailure_WCC_14-15Dec2024.pdf
Three written disability adjustment requests sent to council officers and legal counsel. All were ignored. Only NHS liaison Dr Reid responded.
I. What Happened
Across 14 and 15 December 2024, Polly Chromatic submitted three measured, meticulous emails to Westminster City Council staff, solicitors at Merali Beedle and Blackfords LLP, and NHS contact Dr Philip Reid. In each, she clearly explained that her disability prevents extended verbal speech, and that written communication is not optional — it is vital, medical, and lawful.
She laid out the method: she writes, others may respond briefly by phone or in person if required, but the substance must first be read. Her partner manages this. Her doctors respect it. Only her council and lawyers refused to comply.
There were no replies. No acknowledgements. No attempt to meet the adjustment request.
Dr Reid read and responded. The rest defaulted to what professionals now call “working relationships”: performative presence and strategic absence.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Multiple violations of the Equality Act 2010 (failure to make reasonable adjustments)
Systemic communication refusal dressed as professional discretion
Safeguarding dereliction via procedural apathy
Legal service negligence: solicitors abandoned communication entirely
Dismissal-by-silence of written speech when authored by a disabled woman
This was not oversight. It was orchestration.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because accessibility is not optional.
Because refusing to read is a tactic — not a limitation.
Because Westminster staff and their legal representatives would rather disappear the disabled than accommodate them.
Because adjustment requests are being treated as etiquette breaches, not legal claims.
Because this is not one missed email — it is a pattern of vanishing inconvenient formats.
SWANK archives it as evidence of the elite's latest euphemism: non-engagement as neutrality.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This was a legal request. It was ignored.
This was disability law. It was bypassed.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was sabotage by silence.
SWANK does not accept the fiction that unread emails absolve responsibility. We reject the myth that verbal-only systems are neutral.
We will document every silence, every ghost, every gatekept inbox.
If communication is the battleground, SWANK will be the archive.
⟡ 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.