⟡ The Borough Replies: Thank You for Your Complaint. Now Shush. ⟡
Or, When Politeness Was Weaponised Against Accountability
Metadata
Filed: 4 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/RBKC/AUTOREPLY/FACADE
Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed from: W2 6JL
Court File Name:2025-07-04_ZC25C50281_Thank_You_Email_RBKC_Complaints_Receipt.pdf
I. What Happened
On 4 July 2025 — the day the Claimant filed an updated £88 million civil claim — she also submitted a formal complaint to RBKC’s Corporate Complaints Team, highlighting unlawful safeguarding actions and racially coded procedural misconduct.
RBKC’s full reply?
“Thank you for your email to the Corporate Complaints Team mailbox. We aim to reply within 3 working days.”
No case reference.
No acknowledgement of content.
No gesture of urgency in light of medical harm, judicial filings, or civil liability.
II. Why It Matters
When an active defendant in a civil claim responds to a formal complaint with a form-letter auto-response, it is not administration — it is a performance of governance with no actual governance.
They write:
“We may share your information with other Council departments and third-party contractors…”
And one wonders:
Will they share it with the very social workers under investigation?
Or with Legal Services, who are already named as co-defendants?
Or perhaps with their firewall department, trained to reply in platitudes?
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because in kingdoms like these, nothing screams avoidance like manners.
Because saying “thank you for your email” when the email documents state-enabled trauma is a kind of bureaucratic slap — one sanitised by GDPR disclaimers and Fair Processing links.
Because when the Claimant writes: “You harmed my children”,
the Borough replies: “We may reply within 3 working days. Here's a privacy notice.”
IV. SWANK’s Position
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this email as:
Administratively void
Procedurally insulting
Legally defensive in form, but not in function
The timing — sent within minutes of a formal claim update being logged — suggests not responsiveness, but automated avoidance.
We note for the archive that RBKC, despite being named in multiple legal actions, has chosen to engage its litigation crisis not with accountability, but with the soft fiction of politeness.
⟡ 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.