⟡ “I Told Her I Was Allergic to Hostility. She Scheduled a Meeting.” ⟡
An email to Westminster safeguarding lead Kirsty Hornal explaining the trauma architecture of surveillance, hostility, and silence — framed through metaphor, backed by diagnosis, and anchored in lived evidence. The response: faux empathy, no substance, and a redirection to school admin.
Filed: 14 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/DIS-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-14_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_AllergicToHostility_DisabilityMetaphor_AsMedicalWarning.pdf
Email from Polly Chromatic sent to Kirsty Hornal and GP Dr Reid. Constructs a full explanatory model of disability under state aggression, using metaphor as legal caution: “I am allergic to hostility.” Response contains no reference to content, harm, or risk — only a reschedule and “Are you ok?”
I. What Happened
In an email that deserves to be studied, not merely archived, Polly Chromatic wrote:
That she is “allergic to hostility” — not as hyperbole, but as medical allegory
That surveillance, procedural pressure, and retaliatory silence have caused somatic collapse
That help now feels like threat
That her physical condition is a reaction to being misunderstood in plain English
That her body reacts faster than the law can protect her
She signs it with dignity and fatigue.
Kirsty replies:
“Are you ok?”
“Shall we talk about Regal’s education?”
No acknowledgment of harm. No reference to the metaphor. No safeguarding shift.
II. What the Email Establishes
That the parent has explained the medical-psychological system failure in full
That hostility, not health, is the true allergy
That diagnosis is now cause and consequence, and safeguarding is part of the illness
That Westminster has received a theory of harm — and replied with paperwork
That this wasn’t a refusal to engage. It was an invitation to understand
And it was ignored.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because metaphors are not poetic when they’re legal truths. Because saying “I’m allergic to hostility” means more when hostility is policy. And because this email didn’t need a reply — it needed a procedural shutdown and a public apology.
SWANK archived this because:
It’s a legal artefact disguised as an email
It outlines the psychological and medical consequences of being too often watched and too rarely believed
It shows Westminster received the warning in the clearest possible terms
It captures the moment when procedural harm became intellectually undeniable
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: No accommodation of panic/anxiety triggers
• Section 27: Ongoing pressure despite stated harm
• Section 149: Pattern of institutional deafness to medical distressHuman Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 3: Cruelty through persistent procedural silence
• Article 8: Dignity lost through misread communicationChildren Act 1989 –
• Ignored disability impact on parenting environment
• Procedural response to emotional medical harmSocial Work England Ethics Code –
• No clinical safeguarding response to emotional disclosure
• Prioritised process over emotional wellbeing
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to hear someone say “this is making me ill” and reply with a Google Calendar link. You don’t get to overlook metaphor when the metaphor is the diagnosis. And you don’t get to schedule a meeting about education when you’ve just read a statement about trauma.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a legal metaphor turned medical warning — filed for its clarity, its courage, and the indifference it received in return.
⟡ 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.