⟡ Addendum: On the Inadmissibility of Disrespect and the Fatigue of Politeness ⟡
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/COUNTY-COURT/PC-099
Document: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-099_CountyCourt_WitnessStatementAddendum.pdf
Summary: County Court addendum expanding the claimant’s witness statement within her civil-claim proceedings, evidencing procedural attrition, disability discrimination, and the bureaucratic disbelief of medically documented limitations.
I. What Happened
On 18 May 2025, the claimant submitted to the County Court Money Claims Centre a further witness statement—an act of administrative stamina masquerading as correspondence. The addendum reiterated the unlearned lesson that silence is not accessibility, and that every ignored adjustment eventually re-emerges as litigation.
II. What the Addendum Establishes
That procedural fatigue is not compliance. That the failure to honour a written-only accommodation transforms courtesy into cruelty. That a parent’s insistence on documented communication is neither obstinacy nor theatre—it is survival translated into paperwork.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because every additional statement is both a symptom and a syllabus: an object lesson in the pathology of disbelief. SWANK records this missive as a study in persistence, filed between the exhaustion of the body and the exhaustion of administrative patience.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – repeated neglect of reasonable adjustments.
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8, interference through administrative hostility.
Civil Procedure Rules – failure to conduct proceedings with equity or empathy.
V. SWANK’s Position
Politeness, in this context, constitutes resistance. The claimant’s deference is a weapon honed by exhaustion and embossed with civility. The document stands as an artefact of dignified dissent—a reminder that even the most gracious litigant can file with baroque contempt.