“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Emotional Withdrawal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emotional Withdrawal. Show all posts

I Didn’t Miss the Meeting. They Missed the Point.


⟡ “They Forgot the Visit. I Remembered the Year They Didn’t.” ⟡
A timestamped email confirming a missed appointment by Westminster safeguarding. The social worker didn’t arrive. The parent was sick. The reply offered a screenshot. But this wasn’t about a Thursday — it was about a full year of being ignored, then blamed.

Filed: 9 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_MissedVisit_SchedulingDenial_DisengagementStatement.pdf
Polly Chromatic emails Kirsty Hornal to document a missed visit, assert illness boundaries, and withdraw from live contact. She cc’s her GP and solicitor. WCC’s response attempts to shift accountability with an attached screenshot. The archive captures what they tried to forget.

I. What Happened

A scheduled safeguarding visit was missed — by the social worker.

Polly Chromatic:

  • Waited

  • Was ill

  • And then wrote to say exactly what happened:

    “Social worker didn’t show up today. I’m tired of being bothered while I’m sick.”
    She also clarified:

  • That she wouldn’t be home on her birthday

  • That she was no longer replying after a year of being ignored

  • That the safeguarding dynamic was exhaustive, not supportive

The reply?
A casual:

“Oh I was expecting to see you… see attached screenshot :)”

No apology.
No plan.
Just a JPEG and a smiley.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That Westminster failed to attend their own visit

  • That illness and exhaustion were ignored context

  • That responsibility was attempted to be shifted back to the parent

  • That WCC maintained a professional record with no emotional accountability

  • That the parent had been engaging consistently — until the silence became louder than the contact

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because missed appointments become “non-engagement” when written by the wrong hand. Because screenshots aren’t apologies. And because when the State can’t keep its calendar but writes you down as absent, only the archive remembers the truth.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It exposes procedural laziness masked as concern

  • It reveals the emotional boundary-setting the parent had to enforce herself

  • It shows that “disengagement” is often a survival strategy, not defiance

  • It provides a documented reversal: the institution became unreliable, and the parent became the historian

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Adjustment ignored despite illness disclosure
    • Section 27: Procedural neglect reframed as disengagement

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Missed visit not logged appropriately
    • No follow-up assessment of missed appointment impact

  • Social Work England Code –
    • Lack of accountability
    • Defensive record-keeping over supportive practice

  • Professional Ethics (Public Authority) –
    • No reflective acknowledgement of failed attendance
    • Casual tone in response to clinical and legal withdrawal

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to miss your own meeting and then email a screenshot. You don’t get to ignore someone for a year and then act surprised when they stop replying. And you don’t get to mistake polite withdrawal for neglect when it was your silence that started it.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this document as a procedural reversal — where the safeguarding file fails, and the SWANK file replaces it.

⟡ 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 Made Me Talk. Now I’m Sick Again.


⟡ “I Was Doing Better — Until She Made Me Speak.” ⟡
Health collapses. Again. Because Kirsty Hornal couldn’t read a sentence.

Filed: 15 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-32
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-15_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_ForcedSpeechSymptomFlare_ReidSavageNotice.pdf
Polly Chromatic was recovering — until another verbal ambush from Kirsty Hornal set her back by weeks. This email, sent to solicitor Laura Savage and NHS consultant Philip Reid, documents the exact health impact of forced speech following documented, ignored disability warnings. It is quiet. Devastating. And unimpeachably clear.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic had communicated her limits.
Repeatedly.
In writing.
No verbal communication. Medically exempt.

Then Kirsty Hornal showed up and forced a conversation.

Result:
– Two to four weeks of post-encounter symptoms
– Loss of ability to socialise
– Inability to perform daily activities, like visiting the playground
– Emotional withdrawal and despair

And yet somehow,
Kirsty still thinks she’s “supporting” the family.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That Polly was experiencing health improvement prior to forced verbal contact

  • That verbal speech caused medical regression, emotional injury, and isolation

  • That the professional in question was repeatedly informed in writing of communication boundaries

  • That both legal and medical professionals were directly alerted

  • That this pattern is not theoretical — it’s documented, predictable, and traumatic

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because institutional abuse isn’t always loud.
Sometimes it’s a “quick chat” that steals your lungs.
Because writing down what harms you shouldn’t result in it happening anyway.
Because being nice doesn’t excuse being harmful.
And because no one gets to call it “care” when it’s forced, known, and damaging.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Breach of documented verbal exemption and disability adjustment agreement

  • Disregard for mental and physical symptoms triggered by forced contact

  • Pattern of retraumatisation by a known actor (Kirsty Hornal)

  • Emotional withdrawal and reduced quality of life directly caused by professional behaviour

  • Institutional failure to intervene or de-escalate despite ongoing harm

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly was healing.
Then Kirsty came to talk.

Again.

The system always demands the same thing — voice.
Even when it’s the one thing she cannot give without breaking.

And every time they ask,
the cost is weeks of health,
days of silence,
and now —
one more file.

⟡ 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: