“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

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label PLO Agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PLO Agenda. Show all posts

I Declined Your Meeting. I Submitted a File. Now You’re the One on Record.


⟡ “You Called It a PLO Meeting — I Called It a Complaint Hearing Against You” ⟡
A written PLO agenda that doesn’t just respond to safeguarding threats — it rewrites the terms. Documented. Structured. Delivered in defence of medical law, family rights, and narrative control.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-AGENDA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_PLOAgenda_WrittenSubmission_DisabilityComplaintEvidence.pdf
Written submission in lieu of in-person PLO participation. Outlines statutory breaches, disability discrimination, and procedural retaliation. Refuses verbal contact on clinical grounds and asserts institutional misconduct as the actual safeguarding risk.

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, instead of attending a coerced and medically inappropriate PLO meeting, Polly Chromatic submitted this formal written agenda to Westminster Children’s Services.

This document:

  • Reasserts the lawful refusal of verbal contact (based on diagnosed disability)

  • Chronicles the family’s full safeguarding history, from medical trauma to educational support

  • Names the real triggers of escalation: complaint filing, police involvement, and regulatory exposure

  • Requests all materials in advance, confirms service, and explicitly declines surveillance-style confrontation

  • Demands accommodations for both the mother and father — including cultural and linguistic sensitivity

It is not an agenda. It’s a cross-examination in written form.

II. What the Submission Establishes

  • The family is legally and factually engaged — just not on the terms of institutional harm

  • Westminster’s procedures are structurally discriminatory

  • The verbal meeting format is a disability barrier, not a neutral process

  • The agenda isn’t to answer questions — it’s to question why the process exists at all

  • The safeguarding system’s refusal to honour boundaries is itself the safeguarding risk

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because institutions don’t just manufacture risk — they manufacture the silence needed to justify it. SWANK archived this agenda because it transforms the entire structure of the PLO into what it actually is: a stage for retaliation disguised as concern.

SWANK filed this to:

  • Redirect scrutiny back onto the authority misusing safeguarding frameworks

  • Defend the legal right to written-only communication

  • Provide a full, accessible, evidentiary trail — one the court and regulators can’t ignore

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Adjustment duty (written-only refusal)
    • Section 27: Victimisation
    • Section 149: Public sector duty to eliminate discrimination

  • Children Act 1989 – Procedural harm, emotional injury through institutional failure

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 6: Due process
    • Article 8: Family life
    • Article 14: Discrimination

  • UNCRPD & UNCRC – Right to accessible procedures, protection from systemic coercion

  • Social Work England Standards – Misuse of authority, dishonesty in narrative construction, procedural malice

V. SWANK’s Position

When you demand a meeting knowing it will harm the disabled parent, what you’re hosting isn’t a safeguarding conference — it’s a liability session. This document records who the real non-compliant party is: the one with all the power, and none of the ethics.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this submission not as passive compliance — but as written jurisdictional defiance.

⟡ 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: