⟡ “They Misunderstood. Or Pretended To.” ⟡
If your rights aren’t being violated, it’s only because they haven’t read your email yet.
Filed: 24 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-35
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-24_SWANK_Email_Reid_DisabilityReferralCritique_AdjustmentFailure.pdf
This document captures a precise and devastating email from Polly Chromatic, challenging the continued refusal of Westminster safeguarding staff to honour — or comprehend — basic disability accommodations. Sent to consultant Dr. Philip Reid and shared with Gideon Mpalanyi and others, it lays bare the mechanics of bureaucratic gaslighting. The kind that says “reasonable adjustment” — and then delivers surveillance.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic reiterated what had already been filed, documented, and ignored:
– Verbal interaction is medically harmful
– Forced contact is retraumatising
– Written communication is legally and clinically required
She explained that Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown had failed to respect this.
Again.
She clarified that the safeguarding referrals were based not on concern — but on wilful misunderstanding of those adjustments.
She even noted: the clinicians meant support, not surveillance.
Westminster chose the opposite.
II. What the Email Establishes
That Polly had explicitly communicated her disability needs in both clinical and legal terms
That Westminster social workers weaponised those disclosures to escalate involvement
That Sam Brown’s interpretation of NHS referrals twisted adjustment requests into behavioural red flags
That Dr. Reid was directly informed of how his role was being misused
That Polly was not confused — she was documenting everything in real time
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because misunderstanding is not innocent when it’s repeated after a warning.
Because this wasn’t a failure to comprehend — it was a strategic refusal to adjust.
Because calling something a “referral” doesn’t change the fact it’s retaliation.
And because documenting the refusal to listen is part of how you win.
IV. Violations Identified
Disability Discrimination (Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 and 21)
Misuse of clinical communications for surveillance escalation
Breach of Article 8 ECHR (Right to family and private life)
Emotional injury through targeted disregard of medical protections
Procedural retaliation disguised as child protection
V. SWANK’s Position
Polly explained.
They nodded.
Then they escalated.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was a choice.
To reinterpret support as suspicion.
To read care as consent.
To ignore “don’t call” and show up anyway.
And now, we show up too.
In court.
In files.
And in public.
⟡ 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.