⟡ “Please Refrain from Contacting Me Again” — When Ignoring the Word ‘No’ Becomes Safeguarding Procedure⟡
Or: A disabled mother refuses another recycled referral, and the social worker calls it communication
Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/HARASSMENT-20240209
📎 Download PDF – 2024-02-09_Correspondence_RBKC_FamilyServices_ReReferralHarassment.pdf
Summary: Polly Chromatic rebukes RBKC’s repeated contact about a disproven incident and demands cessation of all outreach, citing legal escalation and disability protections.
I. What Happened
On 9 February 2024, Polly Chromatic received yet another email from RBKC social worker Samira Issa regarding a referral triggered by her prior hospital attendance. The incident referenced?
The same disproven event from St Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024 — already addressed multiple times, already rebutted in writing, already archived.
Issa insisted on a phone call — despite repeated written clarifications that Polly has asthma and vocal impairment that make phone calls impossible.
Polly replied:
Reasserting the disability communication boundary
Noting the obsessive repetition of a closed referral
Stating she had now hired a solicitor for medical negligence
And explicitly instructing Samira to stop contacting her
Issa continued to propose in-person meetings and phone calls.
Polly’s final response was explicit:
“Please refrain from contacting me again.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Persistent disregard for disability-related communication boundaries
Repetitive harassment under the guise of new safeguarding concern
Recycling of a closed referral to artificially sustain involvement
Professional gaslighting — pretending not to understand that no means no
Failure to respect legal escalation and parental rights
Bureaucratic obsession masked as procedural concern
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because harassment doesn’t stop being harassment just because it’s sent from a council email.
Because the moment you’ve told someone to stop contacting you —
and they do it anyway, with a fake smile and the words “just checking in” —
you’re no longer safeguarding. You’re stalking by policy.
SWANK logs this as a prime example of professional misconduct cloaked in “outreach,”
where the mother’s voice is dismissed, her disability erased, and her privacy invaded
— all in the name of keeping a file open.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour known disability accommodations
Article 8, ECHR – Right to private life and respect for family boundaries
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding to extend unjustified contact
Data Protection Act 2018 – Ongoing processing of disproven information
Social Work England Professional Standards – Ignoring communication preferences, legal warnings, and parental autonomy
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t contact. It was institutional persistence against consent.
We reject safeguarding communications that ignore explicit boundaries.
We reject referrals that are just reprints of disproven concerns.
We reject professional conduct that forces disabled mothers to repeat themselves
until the repetition becomes harm.
The council was told to stop. They did not stop. And now, it is documented.
⟡ 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.