“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 Boundary Ignored. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boundary Ignored. Show all posts

I Said Stop. They Said ‘Call Me.’


⟡ “I Withdrew Consent. They Offered Me a Mobile Number.” ⟡
A formal complaint to WCC senior safeguarding lead Fiona Dias-Saxena objecting to procedural chaos, emotional harm, and a total breakdown in trust. The parent clarifies that they do not feel safe, have been repeatedly mishandled, and are invoking written-only boundaries. Westminster’s reply ignores the complaint and offers direct phone lines. The archive, unlike Fiona, listened.

Filed: 8 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SAFEFAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-08_SWANK_Email_FionaDiasSaxena_TrustWithdrawal_ProceduralObjection_CommunicationClause.pdf
A detailed complaint and boundary-setting email sent to Fiona Dias-Saxena (WCC), copied to Sarah Newman, Rachel Pullen, solicitor Simon O’Meara, and MET officer Charlotte Collis-Smith. The parent formally objects to continued contact and procedural chaos. Safeguarding response: “Here are some phone numbers.”

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic wrote to Westminster Children's Services stating clearly:

  • That she no longer consented to direct contact without formal notice

  • That she could not tell which social worker was handling her case

  • That the WCC safeguarding team had become emotionally unsafe and procedurally unreliable

  • That communication must remain written only due to verbal strain and trauma

  • That multiple requests, made legally and respectfully, were being ignored

She signed the message with her standard clause:

“Please communicate in writing to minimise respiratory and emotional stress.”

Westminster responded not with acknowledgment. Not with policy review.
But with contact numbers.
As if the only problem was a lack of reception.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That the parent withdrew informal procedural consent

  • That trust in the WCC safeguarding process was explicitly revoked

  • That emotional safety was a legal and procedural concern

  • That multiple senior officers were on record

  • That the response failed to acknowledge any part of the actual complaint

The parent said: “This isn’t working, it’s unsafe.”
WCC replied: “Here’s our landline.”

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because procedural failure doesn’t just happen in court — it happens in the inbox. Because when a parent explains they don’t feel safe, and the institution replies with a smile and a phone number, that’s not miscommunication. That’s erasure.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It captures consent withdrawal ignored

  • It proves senior safeguarding officers received and disregarded procedural objections

  • It shows that disability-related boundaries were dismissed without reason

  • It marks a pivotal moment of institutional tone-deafness

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Communication adjustment request ignored
    • Section 26: Safeguarding became a form of harassment
    • Section 27: Procedural retaliation via refusal to acknowledge withdrawal

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Interference with family autonomy after written objection
    • Article 14: Failure to respect boundaries related to disability

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Parental withdrawal not properly reviewed
    • No review of emotional harm to family caused by chaotic staffing

  • Social Work England Professional Standards –
    • Complaint improperly responded to
    • Phone numbers substituted for procedural reply

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to ignore a complaint just because it was polite. You don’t get to respond to emotional harm with call centre etiquette. And you don’t get to pretend you didn’t see the withdrawal when it was sent to five inboxes — including your own.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a formal notice of safeguarding withdrawal and administrative failure, now filed for institutional memory and legal reference.

⟡ 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: