“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
Showing posts with label Adjustment Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adjustment Failure. Show all posts

Disability Rights Denied in a Whisperless System


🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 3 December 2024
“Advocacy Required, Adjustments Refused”

Filed Under: Disability Assessment · Adjustment Failure · Advocacy Demand · Voice-Based Exclusion · Sovereign Communication · SWANK London Ltd

—

Dear RBKC Customer Services (and Everyone Else Ignoring the Law),

I wrote:

“I need an assessment for advocacy services for my disabilities…”

And what I received in return was silence — that bureaucratic shrug in email form.

Apparently, in your systems:

  • PTSD is a character flaw

  • Severe eosinophilic asthma is an inconvenience

  • Muscle dysphonia is just “non-cooperation”

And verbal pain?
You treat it as defiance.

Not a single adjustment.
Not from the police. Not from the borough.
Not even from the departments charged with upholding rights.

What do we call a structure that insists on voice when voice is the wound?

Ableist.

I do not request compliance.
I require it.

You are now formally notified:
All further communication must be made to an appointed advocate —
or it will be redirected to the SWANK Archive for publication and legal indexing.

—

📍 Assessment Denied. Archive Begun.
Polly Chromatic
Disability Formalist & Advocate-in-Chief
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Adjustments Owed.



No comments:

We Addressed the Commissioner. The System Sent a Link.


⟡ “We Filed a Complaint With the Commissioner. They Sent a Link.” ⟡

Metropolitan Police Acknowledge Formal Complaint on Negligence, Retaliation, and Adjustment Failure — But Redirects to Website Without Action

Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/NEGLECT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_MetPolice_ComplaintCommissioner_ResponseRedirect_ProceduralDeflection.pdf
Summary: The Met Police Commissioner’s Office responds to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint by forwarding it to Professional Standards and redirecting to a public complaints link, ignoring content and legal notice.

I. What Happened

On 17 February 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, cc’ing:

  • Legal counsel (Blackfords & Merali Beedle)

  • NHS representative (Philip Reid)

The complaint cited:

  • Police negligence in safeguarding follow-up

  • Retaliation following complaints

  • Repeated refusal to accommodate written-only communication

On 18 February 2025, the Commissioner’s Office replied:

  • Acknowledged receipt

  • Stated they have “no direct involvement” in investigations

  • Forwarded the complaint to Professional Standards

  • Suggested Polly use the public-facing “Report a Crime” and “Make a Complaint” webpages

  • No direct response to legal action language or disability rights claims

II. What the Record Establishes

• The Met received a legally framed complaint but offered no institutional response
• The response was automated, generic, and dismissive, regardless of content or cc’d parties
• No action or contact was made by Professional Standards at the time of filing
• This reflects a system-wide minimisation of disability-based retaliation reports
• It supports future claims of procedural neglect, disability discrimination, and legal disregard

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you email the Commissioner about rights violations, and they respond with a link, the system is saying: “We read it. We won’t act.”
Because redirection is institutional denial with polite language.
Because this was not a report. It was a warning. And they dismissed it anyway.

SWANK logs the moment a Commissioner’s inbox became a firewall.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that formal legal notices are answered with public forms.
We do not accept that disabled complainants are redirected instead of heard.
We do not accept that this constitutes “receipt.”

This wasn’t just inaction. It was institutional gaslighting.
And SWANK recorded it.

⟡ 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:

They Had the Notice. They Had the Report. Then Came the PLO.

⟡ “We Refused to Cooperate. They Retaliated Anyway.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Forwards Formal Refusal Letter and Police Report Against Kirsty Hornal to Legal Counsel, After Sending to Westminster and RBKC Officers

Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_Email_LauraSavage_RefusalNotice_PoliceReport_Kirsty_CooperationTermination.pdf
Summary: Forwarded email confirming delivery of refusal notice and police report against Kirsty Hornal to Merali Beedle and Blackfords, securing legal service and timeline verification.

I. What Happened

On 18 February 2025, Polly Chromatic (then writing under her legal name) sent a formal email titled:

“Formal Notice of Refusal to Cooperate Due to Failure to Accommodate My Disability, Emotional/Psychological Abuse, and Harm to My Family”

She attached:

  • A Refusal to Cooperate Letter

  • A Police Report against Kirsty Hornal

Recipients:

  • Legal counsel: Laura Savage and Simon O’Meara

  • CC’d: Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Samira Issa, Glen Peache, Philip Reid (NHS), and multiple safeguarding officers at Westminster and RBKC

This confirmed that:

  • All relevant actors received the refusal and police documentation

  • Legal service was secure and traceable

  • PLO retaliation occurred after these notices — confirming retaliatory motive

II. What the Record Establishes

• The refusal to cooperate and police complaint were submitted before safeguarding threats
• All actors — from Sarah Newman to NHS and lawyers — were copied
• Laura Savage was formally briefed for future legal defence
• The file functions as a service record and legal timeline anchor
• It proves that Westminster’s next step (the PLO) came after full awareness of the harm they were causing

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because refusal to cooperate is a legal right, not a trigger for escalation.
Because forwarding it to counsel is the act that turns harm into evidence.
Because this email will appear in court before the PLO letter does.

SWANK logs every refusal the system ignored — and every silence it responded to with force.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a refusal after abuse is defiance.
We do not accept that legal notice is a loophole for retaliation.
We do not accept that this chain can be denied — because we filed it.

This wasn’t refusal. It was documentation.
And SWANK marked the day cooperation ended — and retaliation began.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions