⟡ “I Said I’d Reply Later. That Was Too Much Power for Them to Handle.” ⟡
A simple, lawful boundary: email reply deferred due to disability needs — acknowledged, logged, and later weaponised
Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DISABILITY-BOUNDARY-NOTICE
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_DisabilityBoundary_ReplyDeferredNotice.pdf
Brief email from Polly Chromatic asserting a written communication boundary — later used by WCC as alleged “non-engagement”
I. What Happened
On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an email to social worker Kirsty Hornal stating that she would reply to messages later, due to needing to manage other priorities. The tone was clear, courteous, and declarative — a basic act of digital pacing consistent with her documented communication-related disability.
Kirsty Hornal replied with a nonchalant “No problems!”
And yet — this exact type of boundary-setting would later be framed by the same department as non-engagement, resistance, or concern for lack of cooperation.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: Misuse of boundary-setting emails to later justify escalation or PLO
Human impact: Anxiety around harmless communication, increased disability strain
Power dynamics: State professionals holding silence or delay as evidence of guilt
Institutional failure: Misunderstanding or willful rejection of pacing as part of reasonable adjustment
Unacceptable conduct: Accepting disability terms in writing, then undermining them in process
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this was a perfect moment of clarity:
Polly said, “I will reply later.”
The social worker said, “No problems.”
And still — that space, that quiet, that breath — became dangerous.
Because institutions don’t need a refusal to punish you.
They only need a pause.
This wasn’t a conflict.
This was a documented deferral — retroactively recast as neglect.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate communication pacing; victimisation for lawful delay
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – surveillance and judgement of private communication behaviour
Social Work England Standards, 3.1, 5.1 – disregard for health-informed adjustments; harm through administrative pressure
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misuse of delay as safeguarding concern
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that “later” is a threat.
We do not accept that breath is defiance.
We do not accept that acknowledging a disability-based pacing need — only to punish it in policy — is anything but strategic malpractice.
This message said everything it needed to.
And now, SWANK has said the rest.
⟡ 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.