⟡ SWANK Recording Rights Dispatch: Volume II ⟡
28 February 2024
This Meeting Will Be Misquoted. That’s Why I Asked to Record It.
Labels: coercion avoidance, mapping misconduct, SWANK reply archive, recording integrity, social work gaslight, parental sovereignty, ICPC procedural theatre
—
I. A Meeting Called "Support" That Won’t Allow Witnesses
The exchange begins with yet another overreach.
Samira Issa, Social Worker at RBKC, confirms:
A mapping meeting on 1 March
An ICPC conference on 4 March
Her refusal to allow the meeting to be recorded, threatening to terminate the session if recording is suspected
She cloaks this refusal in faux empathy:
“We appreciate this may be frustrating, but we do not believe that recording contributes to productive conversations.”
Translation: we want to be free to rewrite your words.
—
II. Noelle’s Response: Decisive, Calm, Devastating
At 21:27, Noelle responds with a field manual in integrity:
“Recording is a great tool for improving the productiveness of communication.”
“My children and I use recordings as a tool to pinpoint areas of improvement in our own behaviour and communication.”
She doesn’t argue.
She models a standard—one the social workers cannot meet.
“Humans who strive to be their best see the value in recording discussions… and don’t see it as a barrier.”
This is not a reply. It is a diagnosis of their fear of accuracy.
—
III. Samira’s Logic Breaks Under Its Own Weight
Despite calling the meeting “supportive”, she:
Refuses children’s presence
Refuses written clarity about concerns
Refuses to be recorded
Insists on writing a report based on what only she heard
That is a trap disguised as help.
—
Filed under:
recording refusal, social worker rewrite, procedural dishonesty, ICPC distortion, SWANK verbal integrity doctrine
© SWANK Archive. All Patterns Reserved. If you won’t allow a recording, you’re not seeking truth—you’re avoiding it.