⟡ “I Proposed an Alternative. They Preferred Escalation.” ⟡
Formal request to modify PLO process in light of disability — ignored without cause
Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLO-ALTERNATIVE-DISREGARDED
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_Email_PLOAlternative_DisabilityIgnored.pdf
Email proposing written PLO accommodations due to disability; sent to Hornal, Newman, and NHS consultant
I. What Happened
On 16 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an email to social worker Kirsty Hornal (copied to NHS consultant Dr. Philip Reid and Director Sarah Newman), formally requesting a written alternative to an upcoming PLO meeting due to her documented disabilities.
The message requested a legally compliant, access-adjusted alternative format in accordance with NHS-confirmed communication accommodations. No lawful reason was ever provided for the refusal to implement the requested adjustment. Instead, escalation proceeded — in person, unmodified, and in direct contradiction of medical advice.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: Refusal to implement medical accommodations in a safeguarding context
Human impact: Exacerbation of respiratory and psychological disability symptoms; increased trauma
Power dynamics: Using forced verbal meetings as leverage against written-only communication requests
Institutional failure: Failure to coordinate between NHS and local authority professionals on access needs
Unacceptable conduct: Treating medically supported disability adjustments as optional
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because no disabled parent should have to beg for an email option during legal proceedings.
Because when a medical consultant is copied in and the local authority still ignores the accommodation, that’s not miscommunication — it’s targeted rejection.
Because the refusal to alter the PLO process was not about safety. It was about control.
This archive entry confirms what Westminster social work continues to demonstrate: access is denied not due to limitation — but because accommodation threatens authority.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments and accessible services
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – violation of family and personal dignity under state scrutiny
Social Work England Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – dignity, transparency, anti-discrimination
NHS Care Act Coordination Obligations – lack of integrated planning between health and social care services
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that safeguarding meetings are exempt from the law.
We do not accept that disability documentation is discretionary.
We do not accept that escalation is the only response to medical clarity.
SWANK considers this one of the clearest illustrations of state refusal to accommodate — even when the NHS is watching.
This wasn’t failure. This was refusal.
And now, it is archived.
⟡ 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.