“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 Disability Harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disability Harassment. Show all posts

She Asked for Help. He Gave Her a Folder.


⟡ She Reported Disability Harassment. He Made a Folder for Her. ⟡
When a disabled woman asked for written communication, she got bureaucratic binning instead.

Filed: 14 December 2024
Reference: SWANK/MULTI/EMAIL-16
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-14_SWANK_Email_Laura_Savage_DisabilityHarassmentDismissed_SimonFoldering.pdf
A straightforward but devastating email record: after being harassed for requesting written communication at an Apple store, the parent reports the incident to her legal and safeguarding team. Their response? Silence — and a digital folder labelled “Simlett.”

I. What Happened

She couldn’t speak that day.
Respiratory restrictions. Verbal exemption. Documented.
At the Apple store, staff mocked her for asking for text instead of voice.
She explained, calmly, via email, to those meant to support her:
– Simon O’Meara (solicitor)
– Laura Savage (child rep)
– Kirsty Hornal (social worker)
– Sarah Newman (executive)

Their collective response:
No outrage.
No support.
Simon replied he would simply begin “sorting her emails” into a folder.

A human rights issue was answered with a filing system.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a disabled parent experienced direct verbal discrimination in public

  • That the incident was reported in real-time to legal and safeguarding professionals

  • That no investigation, escalation, or complaint support was offered

  • That Simon O’Meara chose to distance himself through inbox management

  • That this is not silence — it is institutional sabotage

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because nothing screams we care like Outlook rules and email filters.
Because pretending to acknowledge someone by filing them away is worse than ignoring them altogether.
And because if you’re going to file her — she’ll file you right back.
On the record.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Failure to Support Disabled Client During Active Harassment

  • Discriminatory Neglect in Legal Safeguarding Role

  • Multi-Agency Abandonment of Communication Adjustment Requests

  • Professional Complicity Through Passive Reception

  • Email Management as Proxy for Emotional Erasure

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just a miscommunication.
It was a dismissal — dressed in civility, executed in silence.
They didn’t protect her.
They didn’t object.
They didn’t even respond.
They just filed her under “Too Much Trouble” —
and hoped no one would notice.
Too late.

⟡ 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.
No comments:

She Filed the Police Report. Then She Made Sure They All Read It.


⟡ They Escalated the Case — So She Escalated the Evidence. ⟡
When silence becomes strategy, the only reply is a police report — in writing, cc’d, and archived.

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_MetPoliceReport_SubmissionNotice.pdf
A formal notification to institutional recipients confirming the submission of a police report against social worker Kirsty Hornal for misconduct, harassment, and retaliatory safeguarding.

I. What Happened

The social worker escalated.
The mother responded — not with fear, but with facts.
This email notifies Westminster Council, NHS Trust staff, and safeguarding leadership that a police report has been filed regarding Kirsty Hornal’s pattern of disability discrimination, abuse of process, and harassment.
The tone is composed.
The timing is devastating.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a police report was submitted and distributed across key agencies

  • That the grounds were legally and procedurally outlined

  • That the mother was documenting every stage of retaliatory safeguarding

  • That further contact after this point would be considered institutional misconduct under active complaint

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because you cannot claim surprise when the police were informed — in writing, in advance.
Because archiving is not defiance. It’s legal survival.
And because when institutions are complicit, public notice is the only remaining safeguard.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Harassment by Social Worker in Active Disability Context

  • Abuse of Safeguarding for Retaliatory Escalation

  • Procedural Misconduct under Public Authority

  • Refusal to Acknowledge Medical and Legal Protections

  • Coordinated Pressure After Evidence Publication

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a warning shot.
The recipient list was not incidental — it was strategic.
The institutions copied had the opportunity to act.
They didn’t.
Now, their silence is on record too.

⟡ 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.
No comments:

Holiday Inn Harassment Logged, Filed, and Upgraded to Criminal


🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 8 December 2024
“This Is a Police Matter Now”

Filed Under: Hotel Surveillance · Procedural Retaliation · Emergency Evidence · Police Report Filed · Disability Harassment · SWANK London Ltd

—

Dear Kirsty,

“Evidence of harassment at Holiday Inn.”
“I’m making a police report now.”

That is the entire message.

Because this is no longer a discussion—
It is documentation.

There was no safeguarding. There was no support.
There was a coordinated ambush under fluorescent lights and linen.

And unlike your referrals, mine go to the police.

You brought institutional menace into temporary housing.
I brought evidence.
You brought coercion.
I brought the law.

You sent social workers.
I send consequences.

—

📍 Police-Notified by:
Polly Chromatic
Archival Witness of Coordinated Hotel Harassment
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Violations Prosecuted.

—


No comments:

Bothering Mothers Is Not a Safeguarding Plan.

 🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

YOU NEED TO GET A GRIP.

Filed Under: Referral Repetition, NHS Collusion, Written Refusal Ignored, Disability Harassment, Legal Threats Incoming, Social Worker Obsession

📎 SUBJECT: Same Referral. Same Response. Different Mood.

Instigated by: Samira Issa
Still Lurking in the CC: Eric Wedge-Bull
Response Delivered: With finality and elegance.

“You need to really get a grip and stop bothering me and my children.”
“Goodbye.”

A five-star farewell.
Concise. Indisputable. Sublime.

🧾 Yet Again, a Quick Recap:

  • The incident: 2 January 2024

  • The hospital: Chelsea & Westminster (again)

  • The referral: Based on known, documented, fully-addressed matters

  • The response: Written. Explicit. Repeated.

  • The conditions: Asthma. Panic disorder. Medically exempt from verbal contact.

And still, Samira writes:

“Would you be able to meet with me in person?”
“A verbal conversation will be beneficial…”

To whom?
To you, perhaps. Not to the mother.
Certainly not to the law.

📵 YOU WERE ALREADY TOLD:

  • No verbal meetings

  • No new information

  • No legal basis for further inquiry

  • Solicitor already instructed

  • Referral already answered

But here you are — again — staging another episode of unnecessary inquiry dressed in synthetic concern.

🧠 THIS IS NOT PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT.

THIS IS COERCIVE FIXATION.

A social worker's inability to tolerate boundaries does not constitute grounds for escalation.
And "referral fatigue" is not a justification for ignoring medical documentation.

👁️ THE REALITY:

You are no longer safeguarding.
You are surveilling.
You are stalking through policy, hoping to fabricate a case by sheer repetition.
You are abusing process to override refusal.

Noelle Meline
No longer participating in safeguarding theatre.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, serious, referral fatigue, safeguarding fraud, NHS collusion, Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, mother refusal, legal boundaries breached, medically silenced, RBKC misconduct, SWANK documentation archive, harassment by policy

No comments:

Your Harm Has Been Logged. Estimated Resolution: Unknown.


⟡ “Your Complaint Has Been Logged — Now Please Wait Indefinitely.” ⟡
Social Work England Acknowledges Email Harassment by a Social Worker — and Files It for Later

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_SWE_CasePT10413_SamBrownComplaintQueued.pdf
Summary: Social Work England confirms a formal complaint against Sam Brown is active (Case PT-10413), but cannot provide a timeline for triage or investigation.

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, a formal Fitness to Practise complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding Sam Brown, a social worker at Westminster Children’s Services. The complaint cited repeated encrypted email contact despite a written-only medical adjustment, constituting email harassment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory behaviour.

Social Work England responded on 29 May 2025, confirming the complaint had been logged as Case PT-10413 and is awaiting triage. No timeline was provided. The complainant was informed that they would be contacted eventually for confirmation and further evidence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability-adjusted communication requests are being ignored by state social workers
• Sam Brown made contact via encrypted platforms after being explicitly instructed not to
• Social Work England acknowledges the behaviour as triage-worthy, but imposes open-ended delay
• The system has no urgency protocol for retaliatory abuse related to legal proceedings
• Complaints about safeguarding retaliation are treated as passive case files, not active protection needs

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even when a professional regulator receives evidence of harassment and rights violation, the institutional response is still a queue.
Because the role of a regulator should be to intervene, not to monitor from a distance while misconduct continues.
Because when fitness to practise systems cannot move quickly in cases involving retaliation, they become complicit through inaction.

SWANK archives the moment a regulator nodded — and then paused.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a formal complaint involving harassment and medical adjustment breaches can be deferred indefinitely.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation should be handled on a first-come, first-assigned basis.
We do not accept that state social workers can weaponise encrypted platforms with impunity.

This wasn’t triage. This was procedural stalling.
And SWANK will document every day between “we received it” and “we acted.”

⟡ 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions