⟡ “If You Don’t Live Here, We Don’t Reply.” ⟡
A National Safeguarding Briefing to Parliament Is Blocked by a Postcode Filter and Attachment Policy
Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PARLIAMENT/EMAIL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_Email_MuniraWilson_AutoReplyConstituencyBarrier.pdf
Summary: Munira Wilson MP auto-responds to a safeguarding abuse report with strict constituent filtering, deletion threat for unexplained attachments, and no route for national concerns.
I. What Happened
At 19:37 on 28 May 2025, a whistleblowing disclosure was submitted to the office of Munira Wilson MP, including attachments detailing institutional safeguarding retaliation. The automated reply confirmed receipt — then explained that:
Constituents must include a full name and address to receive any reply.
Non-constituents are advised to write to their own MP instead.
Attachments without explanatory text will be deleted.
Caseworkers may call, but no written protocol is outlined for safeguarding reports.
No mention was made of triage, urgency, or acknowledgment of the subject matter.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• National public interest disclosures are systemically rejected by parliamentary casework filters
• MPs may delete safeguarding evidence if not properly prefaced
• Constituency boundaries are used as a gatekeeping mechanism against whistleblowers
• Urgency is not addressed; content is not acknowledged
• Attachment policies override safeguarding risk
• Institutional abuse is treated as constituent inconvenience
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is how Parliament creates structured deafness — not through ignorance, but through administrative fencing.
Because postcode requirements should not override public protection.
Because when safeguarding retaliation is reported to elected officials and the only response is a delete policy, the system is not overwhelmed — it is barricaded.
SWANK documents the mechanisms of dismissal.
Even the ones that say “Thank you.”
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that national safeguarding disclosures should be gatekept by constituency filters.
We do not accept that automated policies should threaten deletion of evidence.
We do not accept that the administrative size of an MP’s team excuses the refusal to acknowledge abuse reports.
This wasn’t casework triage. This was parliamentary erasure.
And SWANK will log every quiet deletion.
⟡ 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.