Ten Things You’d Know If You Were Actually Qualified to Hold Power

---

🖋 𝒮𝒲𝒜𝒩𝒦 Dispatch | 12 January 2025
PATTERNS OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR: A REFRESHER COURSE FOR THE CONSCIENCELESS

📍 Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
🗂 Filed Under: Ethical Remediation Toolkit · Social Worker Re-Education · Professional Dignity Collapse · RBKC/WCC Integrity Vacuum · SWANK Moral Restoration Bureau

---

To the Department Formerly Known as ‘Professionals’:

Glen Peache, Sarah Newman, Eric Wedge-Bull, Kirsty Hornal, Rhiannon Hodgson, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Rachel Pullen, Milena Abdula-Gomes, Samira Issa
Cc: aaforbes@gov.tc, alsmith@gov.tc, Annabelle Kapoor
Bcc: Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi

---

✏️ A Public Service Announcement (Disguised as a Lecture)

Somewhere between your safeguarding theatre and the false allegations you mistook for duties, you misplaced your ethical foundations.
Not to worry. I’ve curated a syllabus.

---

🧭 THE LOST CURRICULUM — AN ETHICAL SKELETON KEY

1. Honesty & Transparency
– State your actions plainly. Conceal nothing you’d penalise in others.
→ Impact: Public trust. Currently absent.

2. Fairness & Justice
– No vendettas. No tokenism. No procedural show trials.
→ Impact: Legitimacy, if you remember what that feels like.

3. Respect for Persons
– Interrupting disabled parents mid-breath? Not noble.
→ Impact: Credibility, faintly possible.

4. Accountability
– Stand behind your own paperwork. No ghostwriters in lanyards.
→ Impact: Consequence, at last.

5. Altruism
– Helping someone while punishing their tone? That’s not altruism. That’s performance.
→ Impact: Actual support.

6. Confidentiality
– Private data is not a whisper network.
→ Impact: One less FOI on your desk.

7. Courage
– Write the truth, even if it contradicts your strategy.
→ Impact: Heroism, albeit unfamiliar.

8. Humility
– Try: “We were wrong.” It won’t kill you.
→ Impact: Professional rebirth.

9. Environmental Responsibility
– Stop triggering asthma in medically fragile homes.
→ Impact: Breathable air. Imagine.

10. Professional Integrity
– No falsified notes. No weaponised minutes. No polished lies.
→ Impact: Legal documents that don’t read like satire.

---

Polly Chromatic
Archivist of Behavioural Decay · Unpaid Ethics Consultant to Her Majesty’s Dismal Services
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Codes of Conduct Archived. All Virtues Filed.

---

Referral Resent. Refusal Reiterated.

---

⟡ SWANK Exhaustion Transcript: The Email Loop Samira Couldn’t Exit ⟡

9–18 February 2024

The Only “Concerning Pattern” Was the Inbox Behaviour of RBKC

---

I. Introduction: A Referral for a Referral Already Referred

RBKC Social Worker Samira Issa initiated repeated contact regarding a hospital referral from Chelsea and Westminster—based on an incident at St. Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024.

This incident had already been acknowledged.
Already discussed.
Already dismissed.

Polly Chromatic’s responses—initially courteous, later exhausted—formed a pattern of lawful refusal. The only pattern missed was the one in Samira’s inbox.

---

II. Highlights from the SWANK Transcript

9 February 2024 | 6:51 AM

“They are referring me for the same incident that I’ve already spoken with you about... I am concerned about your mental health... I have asthma and cannot communicate via phone.”

9 February 2024 | 2:59 PM

“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”

9 February 2024 | 3:04 PM

“I am spending time with my kids. I do not want to waste my time with you. Call a lawyer.”

13 February 2024 | Samira responds

Claims it’s a “separate incident.” Suggests another verbal meeting—again.

18 February 2024 | Polly responds

“We will be available at 4pm Wednesday 21st February.”
A brief opening—extended despite institutional exhaustion.

---

III. Email Behaviour as Procedural Misconduct

Across this correspondence:

• Samira claims to have read previous emails

• Then requests the same thing again

• Refers the same incident as if it were new

• Ignores explicit references to asthma-related verbal restrictions

• Ignores repeated use of the word harassment

Meanwhile, Polly had:

✔️ Provided documentation
✔️ Asserted her legal representation
✔️ Declined verbal contact on medical grounds
✔️ Replied in writing—more than once

This is not miscommunication.
It’s a refusal to accept written autonomy.

---

IV. When “We Need to Speak” Becomes Systemic Gaslighting

This was not safeguarding.
It was performative dominance through forced conversation.
It was a refusal to read in order to retain power.

Polly said:

“Please refrain from contacting me again.”

RBKC replied:

“Would you be willing to meet me in person?”

That isn’t misreading.
It’s administrative gaslighting by design.

---

---

© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
This isn’t safeguarding—it’s inbox intrusion as institutional ritual.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

£4.2 Million: The Cost of Doing Nothing While a Family Suffocates

---

⟡ This Wasn’t Disrepair. It Was Disability Endangerment at Market Rate. ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HOUSING/RBKC-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_HousingOmbudsman_Evidence_RBKC_Landlord_HousingNegligence_DisabilityExposure_£4.2MClaim.pdf

---

I. £4.2 Million: The Cost of Doing Nothing While a Family Suffocates

This evidence bundle was submitted to the Housing Ombudsman against:

• The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

• The named private landlord of 37 Elgin Crescent

It details:

• Exposure to toxic fumes during critical asthma episodes

• Prolonged failure to repair life-threatening infrastructure

• Repeated refusal to escalate environmental health hazards

• Gaslighting, procedural delay, and statutory breach

This wasn’t neglect.
It was priced indifference — and now the bill is itemised.

---

II. They Knew It Was Uninhabitable. They Left Us There Anyway.

Inside the property:

• No functional extraction during medical gas events

• Water leaks affecting electrics

• Delays in gas meter isolation

• Ignored reports from medically exempt tenants

• Children exposed to toxic inhalants

Inside the council:

• Emails unread

• Statutory duty evaded

• Complaints closed mid-investigation

• No safeguarding action — unless aimed at the tenant

They protected the building, not the bodies inside it.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because a mother with Eosinophilic Asthma should not be forced to chase environmental safety during collapse.
Because children should not be raised in conditions medically indistinguishable from attempted suffocation.
Because when the council and landlord play pass-the-blame, SWANK plays Exhibit A through Z.

Let the record show:

• The risk was declared

• The symptoms were visible

• The council was complicit

• And SWANK — filed the full valuation, annotated in respiratory contempt

This isn’t a tenant grievance.
It is a housing ombudsman submission with forensic layout and legal heat.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe that private landlords are above statutory duty.
We do not permit councils to gaslight their failure to intervene.
We do not confuse maintenance delays with disability abuse.

Let the record show:

The ceiling cracked.
The lungs failed.
The council blinked.
And SWANK — filed for £4.2 million.

This isn’t housing disrepair.
It’s state-enabled endangerment in property deed format.

---

---

Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.

---

⟡ The Flat That Tried to Kill Us ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HSE/ELGIN-HAZARD
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_HSE_Complaint_ElginCrescent_SewerGasExposure_RBKC_ThamesWater_LandlordNegligence.pdf

---

I. Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.

This formal complaint, submitted to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), names:

• The landlord of 37 Elgin Crescent (Elad Katz / AirRock Group)

• Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

• RBKC Environmental Health Department

The allegations:

• Prolonged and dangerous hydrogen sulphide exposure

• Multiple hospitalisations and respiratory crises

• Ignored disability accommodations and medical evidence

• Structural neglect and utilities denial despite statutory notice

This wasn’t damp.
It was airborne threat by negligence — and they let children inhale it.

---

II. What They Let Us Breathe

The complaint details:

• Failed intervention despite formal gas detection

• “Low-risk” minimisation language while symptoms escalated

• Repeated obfuscation from Thames Water, demanding proof of fatality before action

• RBKC’s refusal to act on statutory duties after complaints were filed

This wasn’t a misunderstanding.
It was a coordinated quieting of risk — and of the family it harmed.

We suffocated quietly.
The archive responds loudly.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no family should need a legal team just to breathe.
Because disability adjustments do not dissolve under gas.
Because when three institutions coordinate inaction, they become co-defendants, not departments.

Let the record show:

• The symptoms were reported

• The air was toxic

• The medical records were real

• And SWANK — filed it to the regulator with oxygen and timestamps

This isn’t housing complaint.
It’s environmental evidence framed in child safety and court language.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit structural endangerment to be filed as “maintenance delay.”
We do not accept that disabled tenants must prove harm before officials intervene.
We do not redact the names of those who ignored respiratory collapse.

Let the record show:

The gas came in.
The help didn’t.
The invoices were silent.
And SWANK — filed the air they made unbreathable.

This isn’t an allegation.
It’s sealed evidence — and they’ve already inhaled their liability.

---

---

---