“Please Specify the Fiction Before I Correct It in Full Legal Detail”
⟡ A Forensic Letter of Clarification Sent to a Social Worker Who Prefers Vibes Over Evidence
IN THE MATTER OF: Nonspecific safeguarding allegations, outdoor bamboo showers, gymnastics mats, compost toilets, and the unbearable confusion of legal parenting
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 26 August 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-SMITHJOSEPH-CLARIFICATIONREQUEST
Court File Name: 2020-08-26_Records_AshleySmithJosephComplaintClarificationRequest
Summary: Following receipt of a “safeguarding concern” letter that was equal parts vague and threatening, Polly Chromatic issued this exquisite clarification demand. She itemised twenty-seven questions, each targeting a different fabricated “concern” — from school attendance during summer break to the legal standing of compost toilet buckets. This letter requests specificity, statute references, and factual grounding. In return, it offers constitutional precision and a glimpse into what procedural due process actually looks like.
I. What Happened
Polly received a letter from Ashley Smith-Joseph (dated 19 August, received 25 August) claiming a range of safeguarding “concerns.”
These included:
Children being “not in school” on 5 August — a summer holiday
Use of outdoor bamboo showers due to medically justified plumbing removal
Shared sleeping arrangements on a 10-foot hygienic gymnastics mat
The use of three Reliance-brand compost toilets during renovations
Alleged issues of “tidiness,” “socialisation,” “identity,” and “presentation” — none explained
Polly responded by demanding:
Specificity of concerns, child by child
Legal basis for each claim
Written clarification prior to attending any further meetings
That meetings occur remotely, due to her asthma and formal complaint status
II. What the Letter Establishes
That no safeguarding threshold has been documented
That Polly has been fully cooperative while being accused of the opposite
That alleged “noncompliance” is based on social discomfort, not legal breach
That she has medical and legal justifications for every adaptation in the home
That the Department of Social Development has created a theatre of concern rather than a process of protection
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the right to clarify allegations is fundamental. Because composting toilets, bamboo showers, and gymnastics mats are not risk factors — they are parenting adaptations. Because social workers must be reminded that “I feel concerned” is not a lawful threshold. Because this letter not only rebuts every implied claim — it exposes the absurdity of making them in the first place.
IV. Violations
Failure to specify allegations prior to escalation
Attempted coercion through vague threats
Ignoring disclosed medical adaptations for asthma
Misrepresentation of lawful homeschooling and alternative sanitation
Breach of Article 9 rights (privacy, family life)
Withholding of legal and procedural clarity
Retaliatory conduct post-complaint filing
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this letter as Exhibit E in the case against safeguarding by aesthetic preference. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
That no parent should have to defend legal sanitation choices with statute citations
That asking for “identity” and “presentation” concerns to be specified is not defiance — it’s accountability
That a gymnastics mat is not a threat — it’s a medically clean sleeping surface
That safeguarding must be rooted in law, not discomfort
That this letter demonstrates the appropriate use of the word “clarification” when drowning in institutional fog