“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 CIN refusal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIN refusal. Show all posts

The Visit Was Denied Because the Harm Was Documented.


⟡ SWANK Safeguarding Termination Record ⟡

“You Weren’t Refused. You Were Legally Instructed to Stop.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/CIN-REFUSAL/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_CINRefusal_LegalNotice_Westminster_DisabilityProtection.pdf

I. The Refusal Wasn’t Defiance. It Was a Legal Adjustment.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a formal safeguarding refusal to Westminster Children’s Services, addressed to:

  • Kirsty Hornal

  • Sam Brown

  • With formal implication for Sarah Newman

This was not a withdrawal of cooperation.
It was a written, evidenced, and statutory declaration:

Continued CIN procedures violate disability law.
Contact must be in writing only.
Any further intrusion will constitute harassment, retaliation, and breach.

II. What the Legal Notice Declared

  • That the parent is medically exempt from verbal or in-person contact

  • That prior visits caused documented respiratory and psychiatric harm

  • That the CIN framework has no legal standing when weaponised against disability

  • That three court cases (N1, N16A, N461) are live and cited

  • That all social worker contact beyond written communication is now explicitly prohibited

It was not a tone.
It was not a feeling.
It was jurisdictional closure — in writing.

III. Why This Refusal Was Necessary

Because Westminster has a documented pattern of:

  • Contacting unlawfully

  • Escalating without basis

  • Pretending legal boundaries do not apply to them

Because safeguarding was no longer protective — it was performative control.

This refusal wasn’t sent in anger.
It was filed in evidence.
It said, in effect:

You were never invited into this home. And now you are legally barred from entering it.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not participate in coercive casework.
We do not perform vulnerability for institutions that manufacture risk.
We do not allow safeguarding to be deployed as procedural surveillance.

Let the record show:

You were told.
You were named.
You were warned — not verbally, but in a legal document.

This refusal is not a barrier to support.
It is a barrier to harm.
And it is now part of the archive.

⟡ 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:

Refusal of CIN Visit – Medical Grounds, Legal Filings, and Police Reports | 22 May 2025


🛑 Formal Refusal of CIN Visit Request

A Declaration of Legal Non-Consent and Medical Prohibition

Issued: 22 May 2025
To: Mr Sam Brown & Ms Kirsty Hornal
Westminster Children’s Services

Subject: Disability Adjustment, Judicial Protections & Active Police Proceedings

✒️ Opening Rebuke

Dear Mr Brown and Ms Hornal,

Consider this your formal and final notice: I do not and cannot consent to any in-person visits, uninvited verbal engagements, or contact of any kind pertaining to your CIN involvement request.

Such approaches are:

  • Medically contraindicated

  • Legally impermissible

  • Procedurally coercive and discriminatory

This communication constitutes a legal refusal underpinned by binding medical evidence and statutory protection. You are now on record.

🩺 Medical Standing – Non-Negotiable Adjustments

I am protected by formally diagnosed conditions, including:

  • Eosinophilic Asthma – aggravated by stress and poor air quality

  • Muscle Tension Dysphonia – rendering verbal communication functionally impossible

  • Complex PTSD – specifically trauma-linked to institutional intrusion, including social services

These diagnoses are fully documented in the attached psychiatric assessment by Dr Irfan Rafiq (26 November 2024), which explicitly prescribes written-only communication as a reasonable and legally binding adjustment under UK disability law.

To ignore this is not a service error. It is discrimination with medical consequences.

⚖️ Judicial and Criminal Proceedings – Active and Escalating

You are not engaging with a "service user." You are attempting contact with a person who has initiated multiple police reports and civil actions against your department, including but not limited to:

📁 Police Reports on File:

  • BCA-10622-25-0101-IR – Disability-based coercion (Ms Hornal)

  • BCA-25130-25-0101-IR – Retaliatory safeguarding after protected disclosure

  • BCA-25249-25-0101-IR – Sustained coercion, medical neglect, fabricated risk

  • ROC-10237-25-0101-IR – Procedural harassment by Mr Brown

📜 Civil Filings in Motion:

  • N1 Claim – Disability discrimination & safeguarding abuse

  • N16A Injunction – Prohibiting procedural interference

  • N461 Judicial Review – Legality of safeguarding escalation under challenge

Your insistence on CIN contact in this context is astonishingly reckless and legally indefensible.

🧾 Legal Position – Boundaries Now Formalised

Any further attempt to initiate:

  • CIN visits

  • Verbal or encrypted contact

  • Telephone calls or unscheduled engagement

...shall be treated as:

  • Harassment

  • Breach of medical directive

  • Violation of statutory rights under the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, and common law duties of care and proportionality

You are, by law, now barred from making contact outside permitted channels.

📫 Permitted Modes of Contact – Nothing More, Nothing Less

You may address me only via:

  • ✉ Unencrypted email

  • 📮 Postal letter (Royal Mail only – no couriers, no doorstep appearances)

All other contact methods — verbal, encrypted, or physical — are deemed unlawful and will be documented accordingly.

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


No comments:

Documented Obsessions