⟡ “Please Do Not Reply. We Won’t Either.” ⟡
A Regulatory System So Automated It Forgot Its Purpose
Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/BSB/AUTORESPONSE-MISCONDUCTREFERRAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-30_SWANK_AutoResponse_BSB_MisconductReferralIgnored.pdf
Automated response from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) following a formal complaint regarding barrister complicity in safeguarding misuse and disability discrimination.
I. What Happened
On 30 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to the Bar Standards Board concerning barristers' roles in:
Institutional retaliation through family courts
Safeguarding as procedural weaponry
Legal misconduct, silence, and procedural complicity
Disability exclusion through litigation misuse
In response, BSB issued a generic automated email stating:
The report had been “received”
No case number would be issued
No reply would be read
Delays of “at least eight weeks” were standard
Further instructions were available “on our website”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
There is no immediate mechanism to triage high-risk safeguarding and misconduct referrals
All referrals are routed through non-human filtering, regardless of urgency or severity
No case identifier was assigned, making follow-up structurally disincentivised
The BSB refused to verify receipt, assign a handler, or acknowledge disability relevance
This wasn’t intake. It was automated refusal disguised as administration.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because institutional silence has become the default setting of legal accountability.
Because when barristers participate in judicial harm, and the regulator replies with an autoresponder, that is not neutrality — that is jurisdictional decay.
Because every unacknowledged complaint is a signal to repeat the offence.
Because this was a safeguarding matter involving disabled U.S. children, and an email robot does not suffice.
IV. Violations
Legal Services Act 2007 – Duty to promote public interest and protect clients
BSB Handbook, Core Duties 5 & 8 – Failure to act on serious allegations of misconduct
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability access not provided in regulatory pathway
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 13 – Denial of effective remedy
UNCRPD Article 13 – Inaccessible justice systems
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a response. It was administrative suspension masquerading as process.
This wasn’t regulatory review. It was a spam filter in a powdered wig.
This wasn’t oversight. It was delay theatre — auto-filed and archived accordingly.
SWANK formally logs this reply as a refusal to engage with legal ethics in the face of documented harm.
The report was submitted.
The children were already gone.
And the regulator said:
“Please do not reply.”
⟡ 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 automation deserves to be subpoenaed.
© 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.