“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 Medical Accommodation Refusal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical Accommodation Refusal. Show all posts

I Sent Them My Diagnosis. They Sent Me a Compliment.


⟡ “I Sent a Medical Update. She Sent a Smile.” ⟡
A detailed correspondence between Polly Chromatic and WCC safeguarding leadership coordinating a CP conference, explaining disability access needs, medical trauma, and systemic racism. The parent is direct, precise, and courteous. The reply is warm, evasive, and casually defensive. The archive doesn’t forget what the smiles are hiding.

Filed: 10 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CONF-05
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-10_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_CPConferenceAccess_DisabilityDisclosure_RacismDeflection.pdf
Safeguarding email exchange in which the parent explains verbal communication barriers, confirms psychiatric support, and requests coordination in writing. Kirsty Hornal replies by deflecting racism claims, ignoring medical content, and thanking the parent for dinosaur costumes. The tone is kind. The substance is policy denial.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic emailed WCC’s safeguarding team with the following:

  • Confirmed a scheduled psychiatric assessment due to prior institutional harm

  • Restated verbal disability and request for written communication

  • Asked for coordination of the Child Protection conference via email due to illness

  • Cited ongoing medical recovery and trauma impacts

  • Repeated her standard disability footer, asking for respect of nonverbal formats

Kirsty Hornal replied:

  • To say she doesn’t “think [she] acted in a racist manner”

  • To reframe the coordination email as a matter of tone

  • To ignore the psychiatric evidence entirely

  • To end with:

    “Ending on a positive: the dinosaur photos made me smile.”

A trauma disclosure received a compliment.
A clinical update received a smile.
And a disability notice was politely erased.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That verbal contact limitations were restated before any escalation

  • That Westminster received formal psychiatric context and acknowledged none of it

  • That the safeguarding lead repositioned systemic critique as a personal slight

  • That medical realities were overwritten by cheer

  • That the parent was procedurally consistent, legally coherent, and emotionally transparent

This wasn’t communication. It was narrative suppression with emojis.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because medical trauma isn’t resolved with compliments. Because psychiatric support is not a tone issue. And because when a parent shows you their diagnosis and their schedule and their boundary — and you smile back like they sent you a thank-you card — the archive steps in and tells the truth.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It contains a documented refusal to engage with disability content

  • It marks a deflection of racism as structural concern → personal denial

  • It captures the conversion of diagnosis into pleasantry

  • It proves parental attempts to engage are misfiled as tone problems

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Disability adjustment request bypassed
    • Section 27: Continued pressuring despite medical documentation
    • Section 149: Public authority failure to acknowledge stated disability

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 3: Emotional harm through consistent institutional minimisation
    • Article 14: Disability and racial bias denied through emotional redirection

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Safeguarding coordination failed to adjust for parental illness or diagnosis

  • Social Work England Code of Ethics –
    • Personalisation of structural critique (“I don’t think I was racist”)
    • No safeguarding reflection on trauma caused by prior CP interventions

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to reply to a psychiatric assessment with a compliment. You don’t get to call a boundary “a tone.” You don’t get to make safeguarding decisions while refusing to read medical text. And you definitely don’t get to overwrite trauma with dinosaur jokes.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a performative deflection archive entry — where the parent did everything right, and the institution replied like it was PR rehearsal.

⟡ 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: