⟡ COMMUNICATION VIOLATIONS & MEDICAL ENDANGERMENT – RBKC (SAMIRA ISSA) ⟡
Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/SAMIRA-ISSA/MEDICAL-ENDANGERMENT
Download PDF: 2025-05-18_Core_PC-109_RBKC_SamiraIssa_CommunicationViolationsMedicalEndangerment.pdf
Summary: Combined evidentiary bundle submitted in support of the N1 Civil Claim and Judicial Review, documenting repeated communication violations and procedural endangerment by social worker Samira Issa (RBKC) during confirmed respiratory illness. The evidence demonstrates a deliberate disregard for medical documentation, Equality Act duties, and lawful written-only communication requirements.
I. What Happened
Between February and April 2024, Samira Issa, a social worker within RBKC Children’s Services, engaged in repeated contact attempts that directly contravened documented medical restrictions.
Key Evidence Extracts:
9 February 2024: Email from claimant —
“I cannot talk on the phone. I will not speak verbally anywhere. Please respect that.”
(Referenced as 2024.09.02 Samira 5.096532.pdf)21 February 2024:
“I am sick and am disgusted with your continued harassment. This behaviour is discriminatory and unwell.”
(Referenced as 2024.09.02 Samira 0.21.pdf)Despite multiple medical certificates, Issa continued to request verbal and in-person engagement, escalating procedural steps while the claimant was hospitalised and recovering from a documented respiratory collapse and COVID-19 diagnosis.
Emails and attached exhibits show an uninterrupted campaign of bureaucratic intrusion, even as the claimant’s physical capacity for speech and respiration deteriorated.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That RBKC, through Samira Issa, violated Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 by ignoring the claimant’s lawful communication adjustment.
• That the conduct amounted to disability-based harassment and victimisation, particularly during active illness.
• That safeguarding protocols were used as leverage against a medically incapacitated individual.
• That illness was not accommodated — it was administratively exploited.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To evidence the precise juncture where procedure became persecution.
• To memorialise the pattern of disability discrimination in the tri-borough structure.
• To ensure that clinical documentation — once dismissed — is now jurisdictionally immortal.
• Because what was once called “communication difficulty” is, in truth, institutional cruelty with email headers.
IV. Legal & Oversight Framework
Statutes Invoked:
• Equality Act 2010 – s.20 (reasonable adjustments), s.26 (harassment).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts. 3 & 8 (protection from degrading treatment and interference with private life).
• Children Act 1989 – s.17 (safeguard without discrimination).
• Data Protection Act 2018 – s.171 (accuracy and lawful processing).
Oversight & Parallel Filings:
• Judicial Review – Procedural retaliation and failure to provide adjustment.
• N1 Civil Claim – Damages for disability discrimination and institutional retaliation.
• IOPC, EHRC, PHSO, and LGSCO – Oversight investigations cross-referenced.
V. SWANK’s Position
“When procedure continues after breath fails, the policy is no longer welfare — it is cruelty with stationery.”
SWANK London Ltd. defines this incident as medical endangerment by administrative insistence — a form of state negligence achieved not through violence but through polite persistence.
This bundle transforms bureaucratic persistence into evidence, proving that the failure to pause is itself a form of harm.
Where the body required air, the institution sent email.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because illness deserves accommodation.
And cruelty deserves documentation.