“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 Administrative Rejection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Administrative Rejection. Show all posts

In Re: The Emergency Filing That Was Answered With a Link to a Toilet Assistance Form Or, How RBKC Perfected the Art of Outsourcing Human Dignity to Google Forms


⟡ The Borough That Answered Emergency Claims With a Referral Link for Showering Support ⟡

Or, When RBKC Suggested That Emotional Deprivation Could Be Solved by Shopping Help

Metadata

Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/RBKC/AUTO/SILENCE
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:
2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Automatic_Reply_RBKC_Safeguarding_Matters.pdf

I. What Happened

On 4 July 2025, the Claimant submitted a formal safeguarding update to RBKC regarding:

  • The unlawful seizure of her four U.S. citizen children

  • The absence of lawful threshold

  • Ongoing legal claims involving Westminster and RBKC

  • Institutional racism, medical neglect, and forced separation

The reply?

“Thank you for your email. Please use our new online referral form if you would like advice on washing, dressing, or going to the toilet.”

II. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you file a legal notice about racial discrimination, safeguarding misuse, and international legal violations — and the reply suggests help with cleaning and shopping,
what you have received is not assistance, but theatrical redirection.

Because this was a safeguarding complaint, not a domestic mobility issue.

Because the inbox for child protection is now apparently rerouted to the same form used for “looking after yourself.”

Because no human name, no acknowledgment of the case, no reference to the children or legal filings appeared —
only a message about business hours and bathing.

III. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. hereby classifies this email as:

  • Disrespectful

  • Administratively evasive

  • And emblematic of the bureaucratic reduction of crisis into a tickbox menu

This was not a response. It was a safeguarding eclipse.

We log it not as communication, but as a semi-automated barrier designed to reclassify emergency as inconvenience.

⟡ 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:

On Clarification, Conditional Timelines, and the Art of Pre-Rejection: A Letter from RBKC


🦚 On Clarification, Conditional Timelines, and the Art of Pre-Rejection: A Letter from RBKC, Translated for the Archive

Filed under the documentation of polite deferral, procedural pause, and administratively sanctioned uncertainty.

13 February 2024
Our reference: 12136041
To: Polly

📜 Dear Polly,

Thank you for your recent complaint, received on 12 February 2024. We extend our thanks for bringing this matter to our attention — though not, it would seem, to a conclusion.

🧾 On Scope, Specificity, and Cross-Departmental Discomfort

We note that your concerns span multiple organisations, including but not limited to the NHS and Housing departments.

The implication being: breadth of concern is somehow a disqualifier of immediacy.

While we usually aim to respond to complaints within:

  • 10 working days at Stage One, or

  • 20 working days at Stage Two,

we must first pause to request clarity — namely:

  • What is your complaint specifically in relation to RBKC?

  • What outcome do you seek?

Only with this information, it seems, may the wheels of public service begin their elegant crawl.

📎 On Links, Deadlines, and Pre-Emptive Closure

Please provide the requested details no later than Friday 16 February 2024, by clicking the designated digital link.

Should silence greet our inbox, we shall interpret it —
not as illness, overwhelm, or bureaucratic exhaustion —
but as a voluntary withdrawal of your complaint.

If no response is received by close of business, your complaint will be formally rejected, with the process considered null and void —
a neat conclusion to an unresolved harm.

Please note: the clock has not yet started ticking.
Time, in this context, only begins when clarity meets form.

📜 Yours bureaucratically,

The Polite Arm of Procedural Suspension
RBKC Complaints Department


No comments: