⟡ “I Filed a Report on State Retaliation and Disability Discrimination. Parliament Told Me to Try Someone Closer to Home.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Representation. It Was Geographic Deflection — Filed With Postcode Contempt and Constituency Evasion.
Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PARLIAMENT/AUTORESPONSE-MUNIRA-WILSON
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_AutoReply_MuniraWilsonMP_NoAcknowledgementToSafeguardingComplaint.pdf
Automated response from Munira Wilson MP’s office after receiving a safeguarding and misconduct report involving disabled U.S. citizen children, human rights violations, and social work retaliation. No case was opened. No reply promised.
I. What Happened
At 19:54 on 28 May 2025, an automatic email was sent from the parliamentary account of Munira Wilson MP, following receipt of a formal safeguarding complaint and supporting evidence from Polly Chromatic.
The auto-reply:
Confirmed receipt, but stated no response would be sent unless the sender lived in Twickenham
Noted that if Munira Wilson was only cc’d, the email would be “read and filed”
Advised that attachments without summaries or address confirmation would be deleted
Declared that non-Twickenham residents should contact a different MP
Offered no indication that the content would be forwarded, acknowledged, or reviewed for national interest
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Parliamentary staff are trained to filter out non-constituents, even for safeguarding
MPs receive jurisdictional complaints and respond with geographic disclaimers
Human rights violations and disability abuse are deemed location-dependent
The system depends on the public not knowing how to escalate outside postcode rules
Constituency protectionism is a gatekeeping tactic, not a legal limit
This wasn’t political response. It was auto-filed containment, logged for procedural disinterest.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the postcode doesn’t determine the validity of a human rights abuse report.
Because a Member of Parliament is not exempt from accountability just because the suffering occurs in W2.
Because referral to “your local MP” is not a response to trans-jurisdictional state misconduct.
Because this was not an email bounce — it was a structural dodge, sent with parliamentary letterhead.
IV. Violations
MPs’ Code of Conduct – Duty to respond to matters of public interest, especially safeguarding
Equality Act 2010, Section 149 – Failure to consider implications for disabled individuals
UNCRC Article 3 – Best interests of the child not a factor in reply
UNCRPD Article 7 & 13 – Denial of accessible recourse based on geographic logic
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 13 – Denial of effective remedy for rights violations
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t parliamentary response. It was an autoresponder in Westminster blue.
This wasn’t filtered due to lack of merit. It was dismissed due to lack of postcode.
This wasn’t constituency service. It was jurisdictional avoidance sent by inbox algorithm.
SWANK hereby logs this message as a parliamentary encounter with procedural neutrality masquerading as democratic access.
The children were taken.
The evidence was sent.
The response?
Try someone else.
⟡ 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 dismissal deserves dissection.
© 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.