Showing posts with label Medical Disregard. Show all posts

They Knew She Couldn't Speak — And That’s When They Scheduled the Meeting.

⟡ “The Mother Has Medical Conditions.” — “Let’s Proceed Anyway.” ⟡
When the safeguarding meeting is more important than the patient’s lungs.

Filed: 17 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-17_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_MedicalDismissalRebuttal.pdf
Formal response to Westminster’s refusal to acknowledge critical medical evidence before initiating PLO procedures against a disabled U.S. citizen parent.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services received written notification that the mother was medically exempt from verbal interaction.
She had hospital records. She had documentation from specialists. She had legal rights.
They convened the PLO anyway.
The official record shows no accommodations made, no meeting rescheduled, and no concern expressed.
Because in Westminster, disability appears to be something to document — not respect.

II. What the Document Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal knowingly initiated a PLO procedure in full knowledge of the mother’s medical inability to speak
That no legal adjustments were made to ensure fair access or participation
That the safeguarding process was triggered without verifying whether the parent could physically respond
That disability rights were not merely overlooked — they were procedurally bulldozed

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the safeguarding process is not an excuse to ignore the Equality Act.
Because medical records are not optional reading.
Because forcing a disabled parent into silence is not protection — it’s persecution.
And because this isn’t child protection. This is narrative control.

IV. Violations Identified

Disability Discrimination under UK Equality Law
Procedural Misuse of Safeguarding Pathways
Retaliatory Neglect of Medical Documentation
Violation of Parental and Communication Rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This is no longer a debate about whether the PLO was justified.
It is now a question of whether Westminster knowingly proceeded without legal grounds, without access adjustments, and without care.
The mother didn’t refuse to engage.
She physically couldn’t.
And they punished her anyway.

⟡ 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.

My Children Are Not Evidence in Your Untitled Crime Scene

🖋️ SWANK Black Paper | June 2024

We Do Not Consent to Babysitting by State Surveillance Officers
Dispatch from Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2 — By Polly Chromatic

Filed Under: Harassment by Conference, Home Education Discrimination, Medical Disregard, SW Misconduct

Let it be known across this mouldy kingdom that the Chromatic children remain impeccably mannered, scholastically advanced, and spiritually sovereign—despite repeated attempts by the State to provoke, gaslight, and diminish their mother.

I attended yet another Review Child Protection Conference, presided over by Gabby Bernard, who has now replaced the mysteriously departed Layla. A revolving door of chairs, as if the problem is in the upholstery rather than the script.

This gathering—like the one before and the one before that—was not a conference. It was theatre. Bad theatre. Low-budget, high-surveillance bureaucratic performance art in which every line is delivered in monotone:
"We're not saying there's a concern. But there has been a pattern of professionals being concerned..."

Translation: No actual evidence. Just a decade of murmurs and innuendo paraded as concern.

I, Polly Chromatic, formerly known in courtrooms and crisis meetings as “Noelle,” asked the same clarifying question I’ve asked since 2015:

What, exactly, is the risk of harm to my children?
And again, they could not answer—because there is none.

Instead, they offered a litany of non-events, including that I did not participate verbally in a previous meeting (due to severe asthma, as medically documented). Now, having spoken with “clarity” and “engagement,” the goalposts have moved again. I’m now too resistant, too fixed, too disagreeable.

This is the new authoritarian metric for “risk”: You do not believe your children are at risk.

In fact, I was scolded for not trusting the very professionals who have spent ten years constructing a case around shadows. My refusal to submit to coerced therapy, unspecified allegations, or unlawful surveillance is deemed mental illness by default.

🕯️ Meanwhile, the record reflects:

All four children are polite, healthy, bonded, and thriving in home education
GP Dr Reid confirmed regular care and follow-ups for asthma
Children’s extracurricular activities include kickboxing, yoga, AI coding, swimming, archery, and pottery
The Elective Home Education assessment deemed their programme appropriate and sufficient

And yet the plan continues. Why?

Because I am not broken. Because I write, speak, and document too well. Because I resist manipulation with evidence. Because I have no criminal record, no mental health diagnosis, and no visible subservience.

And so—like every good authoritarian regime—Westminster Children’s Services clings to the fiction of concern in the absence of wrongdoing. It is not care. It is containment.

They do not seek child safety. They seek mother silence.

And to that I say:
My voice is not your documentation. It is your cross-examination.

Conference Attendees of Note:

Gabby Bernard (Chair)
Edward Kendall (Social Worker)
Rachel Pullen (Manager)
Philip Reid (GP)
Janet West-Jones (Police)
Gideon Mpalanyi (Home Education)
Laura Jennings (Solicitor)

🗓️ Next Core Group: 16 July 2024
🗓️ Next Conference: 20 November 2024
📍Venue: 215 Lisson Grove NW8

📮 Filed from Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ By: Polly Chromatic

Labels: Home Education, Harassment by Social Services, Misuse of Mental Health Allegations, Chronic Illness Discrimination, Child Protection Overreach, No Risk Identified, Evidence Refused, Medical Sovereignty

You Went to the Wrong Flat, Ignored the Right Email, and Blamed Me for Breathing.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 13 February 2024

NO, SAMIRA. WE’RE IN A HOTEL. AND YES, I’VE SAID THIS TEN TIMES.

Filed Under: Medical Disregard, Housing Obsession, Written Refusal Ignored, RBKC Incompetence, Disability Rights, Legal and Educational Interference

📎 SUBJECT: Another Email. Another Boundary Breach.

By: Samira Issa
Observed By: Eric Wedge-Bull
Address Searched: Not the one listed
Respect for Disability Law: Missing entirely

“It is not logical to go to our old flat looking for us when I’ve sent you many emails in the past few days… stating that we are staying in a hotel temporarily.”

The fact that this needs to be said is already embarrassing.

Samira claimed to have read the emails. Then proceeded to do the one thing that revealed she hadn’t.

🧠 WHAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE:

Open the email
Read the part about the hotel
Respect the disability communication needs
Ask a question via email

Instead, you:

Showed up to an empty flat
Invented confusion
Blamed the mother
Wasted everyone's time

🩺 DISABILITY IS NOT A NEGOTIATION:

Noelle has:

Severe asthma
Panic disorder
Muscle tension dysphonia
A documented need for written-only communication

And yet—Samira writes as if verbal communication is an optional accessory to "real" safeguarding.

“It is not my fault if you or other humans cannot communicate effectively via written communication.”
💅 Correct.

📚 FOR THE RECORD:

Referral contents unclear
No incident at Westminster and Chelsea Hospital
Multiple false reports from community members
Children thriving, homeschooled, safe
Valentine’s Day: reserved for love, not harassment
Flat move in progress

And yet—social workers act as though motherhood itself is suspicious unless under surveillance.

⚖️ QUOTABLE CLARITY:

“I pride myself on efficiency.”
“You could have simply asked me your questions via email.”
“We are busy.”
“You continue to interrupt our personal, homeschool, and extracurricular activities…”
“Have you thought about how your actions are affecting my children?”

Apparently not. But we’ll remind them in court.

🏛 FUNDAMENTAL BRITISH VALUES, SINCE YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN:

Democracy
Rule of Law
Respect and Tolerance
Individual Liberty

You violate all four when you ignore disability law, presume incompetence, and weaponise "concern."

Noelle Meline
Lawful. Literate. Documented. Done.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, legal threat issued, disability law cited, Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, RBKC incompetence, safeguarding theatre, NHS collusion, repeat harassment, verbal coercion refusal, written-only enforcement, fundamental values violated

You’re Not Listening—You’re Fishing. Call Your Lawyer.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

I WILL NOT SPEAK. I CANNOT BREATHE. I AM NOT A REFERRAL.

Filed Under: Medical Disregard, Referral Recycling, Legal Threat Ignored, Asthmatic Sovereignty, NHS Collusion, RBKC Timewasting

📎 SUBJECT: Referral #6 for the Same Thing (Now with Extra Tone-Deafness)

From: Samira Issa (still pretending this is helpful)
CC: Eric Wedge-Bull (his silence is not neutral)
To: A mother who already answered. In writing. Multiple times.

“I’m sick.
I can’t breathe well.
I will not speak out loud.
Not sure what you can’t understand.”

That line belongs in a courtroom. Or carved into the entrance of every overfunded safeguarding team office.

“Do not ask me to speak when I can’t breathe.”
“Leave us alone.”
“I’m hiring a lawyer. Hire your own.”

🧠 CLARITY FOR THE FILE:

This is not a misunderstanding.
This is willful provocation.
This is institutional stalking by email.
This is a disabled woman stating clear, lawful boundaries.
And being ignored.

🩺 IN CASE ANYONE NEEDS IT SPELT OUT AGAIN:

Severe asthma
PTSD
Speech-impairing dysphonia
NHS negligence under formal review
Written-only communication legally mandated

And yet — Samira insists:

“Would you be able to meet in person?”

That’s not a safeguarding inquiry.
That’s deliberate endangerment.

🧾 LEGAL TRANSLATION:

This is no longer an attempt to “support.”
This is pre-litigation bait.
You are building the mother’s case for her — beautifully.

Noelle Meline
Sick, silenced, sovereign. Legally represented. Not interested.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, written-only demand, medically silenced, safeguarding theatre, legal retaliation, RBKC overreach, Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, NHS collusion, harassment escalation, mother under siege

Hire Your Own Lawyer. Mine Has Been Retained.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

I SAID I’M SICK. I SAID STOP. I’M NOT GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN.

📎 SUBJECT: Yet Another Email About the Exact Same Thing

Refusal Count: 7
Boundaries Ignored: All
Respect for Breathing Difficulties: 0

🗣️ Noelle’s Final Words of the Day:

“I’m sick.
I can’t breathe well.
I will not speak out loud.
Not sure what you can’t understand.”

“So do not ask me to speak when I can’t breathe.”
“Leave us alone.”
“I’m hiring a lawyer. Hire your own lawyer.”

🧠 TRANSLATION FOR THE SYSTEMICALLY ILLITERATE:

“I’m sick” = Medical limitation
“I can’t breathe well” = Documented disability
“I will not speak” = Legal boundary
“Hire your own lawyer” = This is now a legal matter

And yet —
Samira still writes:

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

What part of asthmatic silence are you struggling to comprehend?

🧾 WHAT THIS IS:

It’s not safeguarding.
It’s not new information.
It’s not duty of care.
It’s sustained, deliberate harassment under the guise of public interest.

🧬 THE MEDICAL FACTS:

Asthma (severe)
Panic disorder
Muscle tension dysphonia
Psychiatric report confirming verbal limits
Refusal of verbal contact since 2023

🧯 THE RESPONSE FILED:

Refusal to participate in further discussion
Solicitor instructed
Medical negligence claim in motion
Safeguarding harassment formally documented

Noelle Meline
Not an incident. Not a risk. Not your entertainment.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, serious, medically silenced, RBKC misconduct, safeguarding obsession, written-only enforcement, repeated refusal, Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, Chelsea & Westminster retaliation, disabled mother under siege, legal escalation imminent

They Couldn’t Prove the New Concerns. So They Recycled the Old Ones.

SWANK Archival Dispatch

You’re Citing Allegations From 2022. We Completed Two Assessments Since Then.

Filed: 3 March 2024

Labels: Retrospective Escalation, Redundant Investigations, Medical Disregard, Voice Refusal as Power Play, Social Work Memory Loss, Cultural Literacy Misread as Risk

✦ WELCOME TO SWANK ✦
An Archive of ✦ Elegance, ✦ Complaint, ✦ and Unapologetic Standards
from a Mother Harassed by the State in Two Countries for Over a Decade.

✦ The Pattern Is Clear

“Kensington and Chelsea Family Services completed two full assessments… in November 2022 and June 2023.”

You are not investigating new harm.
You are repackaging old allegations for new justification.
Twice assessed. Twice cleared.
Yet here you are—again—because I had trouble breathing.

✦ On the Escalation

“You escalated the case based on the fact that I kept trying to tell you I’m not able to breathe well enough to talk orally…”

Not because of harm.
Not because of neglect.
But because I could not perform conversation.

When health disables speech, the system assumes guilt.

✦ On Shifting Allegations

“First the nurses told me they had no concerns.”
“Then they said I was intoxicated.”
“Then you said I left my children alone.”
“Now the concerns are from 2022.”

This isn’t a case file.
It’s a choose-your-own-allegation adventure.
You keep rewriting the risk to fit the referral.
No coherence. No credibility.

✦ On Proven Stability

“These allegations have not been proven by the hospital or the police.”

And yet they’re treated as fact.
Because accusation always outruns evidence in the safeguarding script.

“My children are very intelligent and well socialised… exposed to many cultures across the world…”

You call them isolated because they’re not trapped in one postcode.
That’s not risk. That’s global education.

✦ On Care and Clarity

“A friend of mine stays with my kids when I go to the ER.”
“We’ve discussed their father with social workers during both assessments.”

All already said.
All already done.
All already documented.

But this isn’t about care.
It’s about control.

✦ Final Word

“It makes no sense for my children and I to have to address concerns that were already addressed in two previous assessments.”

Unless, of course, the goal was never resolution—
only sustained intrusion.

Filed under: Recycled Allegations, Punishment for Medical Needs, Assessment Amnesia, Motherhood Reinvestigated Until It Breaks, Evidence Ignored in Favour of Narrative

On Pancakes, Consent, and Procedural Politesse: A Letter from RBKC, Translated for the Record

🦚 On Pancakes, Consent, and Procedural Politesse: A Letter from RBKC, Translated for the Record

Filed under the documentation of institutional tone, performative concern, and the ever-elusive art of missing the point.

5 March 2024
Our reference: 12240997
To: Polly

📜 Dear Polly,

Thank you for your recent complaint received on 26 February 2024, which we have reviewed under the Council’s non-statutory complaints procedure — a phrase that here appears to serve as both disclaimer and decorative trim.

📹 On YouTube Clips and the Etiquette of Documentation

We note that video footage was uploaded to YouTube, in which staff were recorded without their consent. In future, we politely request that you notify staff of any recordings in advance, so that they may be informed — and, presumably, perform accordingly.

Transparency, it seems, is welcome — but only when curated.

🧾 On Pancakes, Medical Rights, and Strategic Silence

Having viewed the footage and spoken with the social worker and her manager, it is our understanding that:

You informed staff you would be in the kitchen with Honor making pancakes;
You clearly stated that you would not be speaking due to asthma-related health concerns;
You requested that all communications be provided in writing.

This, we acknowledge, made it difficult to discuss concerns raised by hospital staff regarding your “presentation” —
concerns which, we add, would have been inappropriate to address directly with your children.

The implication being: because you upheld a medically necessary communication boundary,
concerns remained undiscussed — and thus, unresolved.

🏛️ On Case Transfer and Institutional Handover

We understand that an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) is scheduled for
Thursday 14 March 2024, during which this case will be transferred to Westminster Local Authority.

A passing of procedural responsibility, if not professional insight.

✨ And Finally, A Note on Future Collaboration

We trust that going forward you will engage with Westminster to explore what support may be “beneficial” to you and your family —
a phrase which, though vague, implies mutual goodwill, despite the omission of meaningful accommodation thus far.

📬 Yours faithfully,

The Borough, Polished but Not Particularly Listening