⟡ “I Said I Couldn’t Speak. They Asked Me Not to Write.” ⟡
An email disclosing disability, forwarding health updates, and attempting multi-agency clarity — met with silence, exclusion, and formal request from the NHS to no longer be copied in. This wasn’t miscommunication. It was erasure with manners.
Filed: 24 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/NHS-04
๐ Download PDF – 2024-11-24_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_HSMH_DisabilityDisclosure_EmailRefusalPattern.pdf
Forwarded message from Polly Chromatic to WCC social worker Kirsty Hornal including NHS clinic communication. Expresses communication disability and institutional exhaustion. NHS asks not to be included. Social care says nothing. Archive records everything.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic forwarded an email from an NHS mental health clinic to Westminster safeguarding. In it:
She restated her disability (“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult”)
She requested understanding and continuity
She referenced Dr Rafiq and the ongoing delay in her mental health report
She acknowledged institutional harm:
“It is not easy to communicate with you all after how we’ve been treated”
And the reply?
The NHS wrote back:“We kindly request that you do not copy us into further emails.”
And WCC said nothing at all.
II. What the Email Establishes
That disability was clearly and politely disclosed
That the parent was attempting multi-agency transparency
That the NHS opted for silence — not coordination
That WCC used the email but didn’t respond
That the parent was gaslit into saying:
“We feel better now that you are all helping”
…right after being formally excluded from help
This wasn’t confusion. It was a choreographed non-response.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because asking not to be copied in is not a boundary — it’s a withdrawal from responsibility. Because a parent shouldn’t have to repeat her disability over and over just to be ignored politely. And because when they close the door quietly, the archive opens it permanently.
SWANK archived this because:
It captures a rejection disguised as professionalism
It shows the emotional collapse caused by procedural indifference
It documents another disability disclosure followed by institutional disengagement
It proves the parent was still trying — long after the system stopped caring
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Reasonable adjustment refused
• Section 27: Procedural hostility post-disclosure
• Section 149: Failure to engage across institutional linesHuman Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Disruption of private and family life through exclusion
• Article 14: Discrimination in service delivery via email disengagementChildren Act 1989 – Failure to coordinate necessary health and safeguarding supports
NHS Duty of Care / PALS –
• Failure to support patient during procedural risk
• Emotional harm via administrative exclusion
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to request silence from someone who can’t speak. You don’t get to ignore written words when those words are all she has. And you don’t get to perform professional kindness while quietly withdrawing help.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this entry as a formal record of coordinated silence — archived in the precise words they hoped would go unnoticed.
⟡ 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.