“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Access Request. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Access Request. Show all posts

They Didn’t Respond to the Disability. So the Archive Did.


⟡ “I Asked for Advocacy. They Gave Me Silence.” ⟡
A formal disability assessment request sent by Polly Chromatic to RBKC, copied to legal and medical professionals, requesting advocacy support due to PTSD, respiratory illness, and speech strain. Every diagnosis is named. Every legal recipient is copied. Every right is clearly asserted. The response? Nothing. The result? SWANK.

Filed: 12 March 2024
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/ACCESS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-03-12_SWANK_Email_RBKC_AdvocacyAssessmentRequest_DisabilityDisclosure_CrossAgencyNotice.pdf
Request for formal advocacy assessment submitted to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Includes medical disclosures and email communication preference. Copied to solicitor, GP, NHS consultant, and Westminster social care. No reply. No action. But now — a permanent record.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic, in a calm and legally structured email, wrote to RBKC:

  • Disclosing three clinical conditions:

    • Eosinophilic asthma

    • Muscle dysphonia

    • PTSD caused by safeguarding trauma

  • Requesting an advocacy assessment

  • Explaining why she cannot safely speak

    “It’s painful to speak verbally and email is fine.”

  • Copying:

    • Simon O’Meara (solicitor, Blackfords LLP)

    • Dr Harley Street

    • Laura Savage (NHS support)

    • Kirsty Hornal (safeguarding officer implicated in disability acquisition)

The request was polite.
The credentials were real.
The archive received it.
No one else did.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That RBKC was notified of disability access rights

  • That the request was not vague — it was clinically and procedurally specific

  • That support was asked for before conflict escalated

  • That the email was sent proactively and professionally

  • That silence from institutions is not neutral — it’s refusal by omission

They were given a chance to help.
They took it as a chance to ignore.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because every denial starts with a request they don’t answer. Because public bodies don’t need to say “no” — they just need to disappear long enough that you collapse first. And because this isn’t an email anymore — it’s now evidence of systemic refusal to accommodate disabled claimants across multiple boroughs.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It confirms that verbal disability was communicated clearly and early

  • It proves cross-borough jurisdictional notification

  • It provides a procedural timestamp for access failures

  • It is now the starting point for every complaint RBKC will receive from here onward

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Duty to make adjustments ignored
    • Section 27: Procedural delay as discriminatory retaliation
    • Section 149: Total disregard of lawful access rights

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Interference via inaccessible support systems
    • Article 14: Discrimination based on medical communication needs

  • Care Act 2014 / Children Act 1989 –
    • Failure to assess parent’s need for advocacy as part of safeguarding contact

  • Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Standards –
    • Non-response to formal request = maladministration

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to ignore a disability just because it was sent to your generic inbox. You don’t get to leave someone voiceless and then say they never asked. And you don’t get to be surprised when silence turns into legal record — because you were copied in when it still could’ve been fixed.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a foundational record of cross-agency procedural abandonment — medically informed, legally cited, and permanently filed.

⟡ 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: