“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 Chelsea and Westminster retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chelsea and Westminster retaliation. Show all posts

My Asthma Isn’t a Risk — Your Referral Is

 📎 SWANK Dispatch: Four Children. Three Diagnoses. Zero Legal Reason to Escalate.

🗓️ 28 February 2024

Filed Under: Section 47 escalation, disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, RBKC retaliation, Chelsea and Westminster cover-up, asthma crisis weaponised, mother’s medical record ignored, lawful parenting undermined, discriminatory assessment

“He kept asking if my son looks after me.
I said no.
But I do look after myself.
And I had to record it — because I knew they wouldn’t write it down.”
— A Disabled Mother Denied Protection but Given Surveillance

This document captures the height of RBKC’s Section 47 misconduct, following a string of false safeguarding referralsinitiated by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. Despite having:

  • Four children with formal asthma diagnoses

  • A written medical record of her own chronic illness

  • Documented retaliation from NHS staff after requesting oxygen and filing a complaint

RBKC social workers, including Samira Issa, continued to escalate concerns based on:

  • “Frequency of referrals” (all originating from misconduct)

  • Out-of-context observations about her voice, posture, or family dynamics

  • Their own failure to understand her disability

🔎 I. When the Report Isn’t an Assessment — It’s a Narrative

RBKC’s internal reports:

  • Omitted key medical facts

  • Reframed legal homeschooling as a concern

  • Suggested parentification without evidence

  • Downplayed the falsehood of the original referral

  • Used subjective impressions of “household energy” as justification

And worst of all:

  • Never referenced the video or audio recordings that contradicted their version

  • Refused to withdraw the report, despite being proven factually incorrect

📹 II. The Evidence They Ignored

Noelle submitted:

Yet these were never referenced in the investigation.

✍️ III. SWANK Commentary

They claim to care about the child’s welfare.
But they don’t want to talk about asthma.
Or mold.
Or missing medical files.
Or why Samira Issa brought her mum instead of a professional.

The “concern”
is just a cover
for surveillance.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions