⟡ “She Cancelled Two Visits — Then Offered an ‘Asthma Passport’ Like It Was a Museum Lanyard.” ⟡
Two safeguarding meetings cancelled at the last minute. A health crisis dismissed. A disability reframed through pre-printed metaphors. This is not care. It’s tokenism with a subject line.
Filed: 13 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MED-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-13_SWANK_Email_Westminster_KirstyHornal_CancelledVisits_AsthmaPassportTokenism.pdf
Correspondence from WCC’s Kirsty Hornal cancelling two child protection visits, reframing clinical risk as "frustration," and proposing an “Asthma Passport” based on templates for autism or diabetes. Medical minimisation, coercive proximity, and empty gestures — archived.
I. What Happened
By February 2025, Polly Chromatic had already:
Disclosed her asthma and dysphonia diagnoses
Warned that verbal contact could exacerbate life-threatening symptoms
Filed complaints about unlawful contact, safeguarding harm, and emotional collapse
What she received:
Two cancelled visits — one the morning of, one with “sincere apologies”
A suggestion that future visits might involve “popping in”
And the introduction of an “Asthma Passport” — without clinical definition, review, or necessity
This wasn’t protection. It was stationery theatre.
II. What the Email Establishes
That Westminster acknowledged medical conditions — but sought to reduce them to laminated paperwork
That scheduled support was irregular and emotionally destabilising
That safeguarding language was used to excuse repeated administrative failures
That tone management (“I genuinely apologise”) replaced accountability
That “frustration” was named — but not the cause of it: institutional harm
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because a disability passport isn’t a solution when you’re the one causing the symptoms. Because “popping in” to a chronically ill person’s home is not support — it’s surveillance with a soft opener.
SWANK archived this because:
It confirms that Westminster didn’t need more documentation — they needed to respect the documentation already filed
It captures a council using accessibility theatre to deflect from non-compliance
It places the burden of “solution” back on the disabled parent, again
This isn’t accommodation. It’s a postcard from institutional denial.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: No genuine adjustment offered
• Section 27: Continued psychological pressure post-disclosure
• Section 149: Duty to anticipate, not retrofit, medical needsChildren Act 1989 – Emotional harm through procedural unreliability and boundary collapse
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 3: Emotional harm from misused support pathway
• Article 8: Home and privacy invasion under false pretextSocial Work England Standards –
• Inappropriate language and casual contact attempts
• Unprofessional boundary minimisation
• Administrative failure reframed as “frustration”
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a visit. It was a test. Would she say yes this time? Was she still resisting? Could we soften the edge with laminated sympathy?
But you can’t pop into someone’s life after you’ve dismantled their breath. And you can’t call it support when you’re the reason she needs a passport in the first place.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this email as a case study in disability tokenism and a formal record of support by slogan — archived permanently.
⟡ 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.