Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): Simon O’Meara

Showing posts with label Simon O’Meara. Show all posts

The Complaint Loop Is a Weapon. Posting Is a Shield.

⟡ “I Won’t Make the Police Report You Asked Me To — I’m Too Busy Posting It.” ⟡

The hospital tells the police to tell the mother to submit a complaint — so the hospital can report her for doing so.

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/MET-LOOP-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_Email_Reid_MetPoliceRefusal_HospitalRetaliationCycle.pdf
A disabled parent declines to participate in a retaliatory hospital-police feedback loop and chooses public evidence over private complaint channels.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic received a boilerplate response from the Metropolitan Police telling her to “contact the hospital” or "Patient Advice Liaison."
She refused.

She explained why, in writing:
• The hospital retaliates when she doesn’t report them
• The police refuse to investigate abuse
• The complaint system is a trap

So she sent the truth.
Not to the hospital.
Not to the ombudsman.
To everyone.

And she posted it all online.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Direct evidence of retaliatory institutional complaint mechanics
NHS weaponisation of safeguarding and complaint loops
Police refusal to investigate medical abuse
Parent declaring formal withdrawal from coercive channels
WCC, NHS, and legal representatives cc’d for evidentiary trail

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a system requires you to report yourself in order to survive it —
it’s no longer a health service.

Because truth shouldn’t require a trigger warning.
Because the only effective complaints mechanism left…
is publication.

IV. Violations

Institutional retaliation and false-report laundering
Violation of disability rights via procedural coercion
Breach of Article 13 ECHR: right to an effective remedy
Police refusal to protect a vulnerable American family
Emotional injury through deliberate misdirection and refusal

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly stated it clearly:

“I don’t care about the hospital’s dumb complaint process. I just post it all online for the world to see.”

This is not disrespect.
It is documentation — for survival.

And this email will now live in public, forever.

⟡ 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.

She Withdrew from Speech. They Replied with Silence and Surveillance.

⟡ “Verbal Isn’t Required — But Accountability Is.” ⟡

A mother declares her disability in writing. The state responds with escalation, not accommodation.

Filed: 21 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-21_SWANK_Email_Reid_ForcedSpeechRetaliation_DisabilityExemptionNotice.pdf
Polly Chromatic formally withdraws from all verbal communication due to documented asthma exacerbation and trauma injury, submitting this legal and medical declaration to Westminster social workers, their supervisors, and NHS clinicians. It was ignored — and then weaponised.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic — disabled mother, sole caregiver to four disabled U.S. citizen children — submitted this direct and clinical communication confirming that:

Verbal speaking triggers medical exacerbation
Institutional pressure to “speak” is discriminatory
All future communication must be written

She cited retaliation, coercion, and her medical exemptions.
She sent it to everyone.
Westminster responded with even more surveillance, more unscheduled visits, and continued refusal to comply.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

A clear clinical boundary was documented, timestamped, and distributed
That boundary was not respected
Professionals involved included safeguarding, legal, and medical staff
No written reply was issued; the parent was punished instead
The institutional aim was not to support — it was to provoke

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a disabled mother says “This is harming me,”
and the state says “Say it louder” — that’s abuse.
Because refusing to speak isn’t defiance — it’s survival.
Because if silence is your right, then retaliation is their crime.

IV. Violations

Breach of Section 20 & 21 Equality Act (Failure to make reasonable adjustments)
Medical harassment through forced verbal interaction
Safeguarding retaliation for documented disability disclosures
Breach of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR (inhuman treatment, private life)
Failure to implement clinical protections acknowledged by NHS consultant

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly declared her limits.
They saw those limits as a challenge.
This email is not a request — it’s a line.
And every violation past this line is now recorded.

Forever.

She Wasn’t Angry. She Was Finished.

⟡ “I’m Only Interested in Talking About My Books Now.” ⟡
Because after a year of harassment, she owed them nothing — not even a sentence.

Filed: 9 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-29
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_Email_SimonOMeara_StatementOnHarassment_ClosureDeclaration.pdf
This was the moment the script flipped. Not a complaint. Not a plea. Just a boundary: she’s done explaining. Sent to every actor in the case — social workers, lawyers, GPs, therapists — with a full blind-copy to her own archive. It’s not defiance. It’s authorship.

I. What Happened

She wrote one final group email.
To everyone: Kirsty Hornal. Sarah Newman. Samira Issa. Eric Wedge-Bull. Rhiannon Hodgson. Sam Brown. Glen Peache. Simon O’Meara. Laura Savage. Philip Reid.
She said: I’ve explained myself a hundred times.
She said: You’ve harassed me while I was medically collapsing.
She said: I’m done.

And then she included a book excerpt — a cosmic one.
Not for them. For posterity.
Because they weren’t listening anyway.

II. What the Email Establishes

That the parent had made exhaustive efforts to communicate clearly and repeatedly
That her experiences of harassment spanned both social services and police
That she was asserting autonomy through creative authorship, not compliance
That institutional obsession had become one-sided — she had emotionally exited the exchange
That this email marked a formal, documented withdrawal of energy and investment

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when the State won’t leave you alone,
you send them literature.
Because disengagement can be an act of power — especially when it’s eloquent.
Because this is what emotional closure looks like in the face of chronic interference.
And because the file needed a finish line.

IV. Violations Identified

Sustained Pattern of Procedural Harassment During Period of Medical Instability
Refusal to Acknowledge Prior Explanations or Boundaries by the Targeted Individual
Obsessive Surveillance by Multiple Agencies Despite Lack of Ongoing Cause
Breach of Disability Adjustment Expectations for Verbal and Emotional Load
Weaponisation of Authority After Target Had Fully Complied with Legal and Procedural Requests

V. SWANK’s Position

She gave them her words — over and over.
They discarded them.
So she chose her own — not to persuade,
but to archive.
She ended the conversation not by disappearing,
but by publishing.

And when she said, “I’m only interested in my books,”
what she meant was:
You’re not the story anymore.

You Don’t Need to Believe Me. You Need to Treat Her.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 21 November 2024
SHE CALLED MY OXYGEN METER “TRASH.” THEN SHE TRIED TO ARGUE WITH MY BREATH.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Verbal Assault in A&E · Oxygen Disbelief · NHS Bullying · Child Medical Disregard · Adjustment Ignorance · SWANK Maternal Defence Archive

To:

Simon O’Meara, Laura Savage
Cc: Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Gideon Mpalanyi
Bcc: Nannette Nicholson, Harley Street Mental Health

🩸 THE DOCTOR’S FIRST DIAGNOSIS? DISBELIEF.

“She said my oxygen meter is trash. That Honor is fine. That she doesn’t believe me.”
“She insulted my nebuliser too.”

What she offered wasn’t medical care.
It was contempt in latex gloves.

🗣 I SAID I COULDN’T SPEAK. SHE KEPT TALKING.

“I had to speak loudly so she would hear me—because she wouldn’t shut up and listen.”

This wasn’t a consultation.
It was an ambush on the voiceless.

⏳ “IT’LL BE HOURS”—SPOKEN AS A THREAT, NOT A FACT.

“She kept repeating it. It was like she wanted me to get angry at her.”

Waiting is protocol.
Weaponising it is malpractice.

📹 FROM THIS POINT FORWARD: WE DOCUMENT EVERYTHING.

“I told her I don’t want to talk anymore. Just treat my daughter.”

Your disbelief is not our diagnosis.
It’s our evidence.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT — IGNORED IN PERSON, PUBLISHED FOR RECORD:

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

The oxygen meter wasn’t broken.
Your system was.

Polly Chromatic
I don’t need to argue. I breathe. I document. I publish.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Breathless Incidents Indexed.

Apparently, Refusing to Argue Is a Problem When You’re a Disabled Mother With Facts.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 21 November 2024
THE DOCTOR SAID MY OXYGEN METER IS “TRASH.” THEN SHE TRIED TO ARGUE.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Medical Bullying · Verbal Harassment · NHS Abuse · Paediatric Disbelief · Oxygen Meter Gaslighting · SWANK Respiratory Hostility Records

To:

Simon O’Meara, Laura Savage
Cc: Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Gideon Mpalanyi
Bcc: Nannette Nicholson, Harley Street Mental Health

🥀 SHE DIDN’T WANT EVIDENCE. SHE WANTED DOMINANCE.

“She said my oxygen meter is trash. That Honor is fine. That she doesn’t believe me.”
“She insulted my nebuliser. Repeated that she didn’t believe anything I said.”

You call this a clinical environment?
It was a bullying chamber in scrubs.

🗣 I HAD TO SPEAK LOUDLY—NOT IN DEFIANCE, BUT IN DEFENCE.

“She wouldn’t shut up and listen. She kept repeating herself like she wanted me to get angry.”

Loudness is not hostility when used to escape gaslighting.
It’s the volume of self-preservation.

⏳ THE WAIT WAS WEAPONISED.

“She kept saying it’s gonna be hours. She kept repeating it like a punishment.”

Delay was not neutral.
It was strategic.
She didn’t treat my daughter—she provoked the mother.

🔴 FROM THIS POINT FORWARD: RECORDED. ARCHIVED. SHARED.

“I told her I don’t want to talk anymore. Just treat my daughter.”

If I must bring a USB stick to A&E to get care, so be it.
What I won’t bring is silence.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT, RE-PUBLISHED FOR THE INCOMPETENT:

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Not your curiosity. Not your debate.
This is a clinical adjustment.

Polly Chromatic
Defending oxygen with evidence. Recording disbelief with elegance.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Disrespect Archived.

Apparently, That’s Offensive.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 23 November 2024
WE DON’T ARGUE. WE BREATHE.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Verbal Hostility · Hospital Gaslighting · Disability Disrespect · Child Medical Neglect · A&E Verbalism · Respiratory Mismanagement · SWANK Defence of Breath

To:

Kirsty Hornal
Cc: Fiona Dias-Saxena, Sarah Newman, Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Gideon Mpalanyi
Bcc: Nannette Nicholson, Harley Street Mental Health

📣 WHAT I SAID (NOT THAT THEY LISTENED):

“I don’t appreciate the way they treat us when we go to the hospital unable to breathe—when we can’t defend ourselves verbally.”
“All they want to do is argue.”
“We don’t have time or respiratory capacity to do that.”

The last thing a mother should need in the A&E is rhetorical stamina.
Yet this system insists on performance—over pulse, posture, or protocol.

👶🏽 ON BEHALF OF MY DAUGHTER:

“It’s very straightforward. All they needed to do was check Honor.”
“But they wanted to argue about it instead.”

This isn’t a failure to understand.
It’s a refusal to accommodate—deliberate, rehearsed, and increasingly cruel.

🌀 SYSTEMIC ABUSE, THEN BLAME:

“After they abuse us, everyone blames me.”
“And when my kids get older, they will be treated the same way unless it changes now.”

You’ve confused safeguarding with antagonism.
And weaponised authority against the breathless.

🧠 VERBAL EFFORT IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT YOUR ENTITLEMENT:

“It’s exhausting for us to do simple things like talk.”
“Apparently other people can talk more easily because they waste it on arguing.”
“We only talk when it’s meaningful.”

We do not owe you discourse.
We owe our lungs oxygen, not defence.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (ETERNALLY NEEDED):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Verbalism is not care. It is coercion.
And we document every syllable you try to extract unlawfully.

Polly Chromatic
Archiving the violence of disbelief. Refusing to breathe for your benefit.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Inhales Indexed.

You Don’t Have to Believe Me. You Just Have to Treat Me.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024
I’M NOT AVOIDING THERAPY. YOU’RE AVOIDING ACCESS.
Also titled: “When Silence Is the Only Accommodation You Won’t Offer.”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Therapy Denial · Access Sabotage · Disability Discrimination · Community Exclusion · Verbal Adjustment Refusal · SWANK Procedural Harm Index

To: Kirsty Hornal
Cc: Dr Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi, Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara

🩺 THE STATEMENT THEY RECEIVED—AND STILL REFUSED TO UNDERSTAND:

“I’d love to go to therapy but no one will provide adjustments for my disability needs...”
“It is not our problem. It is your community’s problem.”
“You keep expecting us to behave like people who don’t have a disability—and we can’t.”
“Someone needs to call the mental health practice and explain that I can’t explain everything verbally.”

You didn’t misunderstand.
You simply didn’t care to translate accommodation into action.

🧠 FOR THOSE ALLERGIC TO DIGNITY, HERE’S A TRANSLATION:

I asked for therapy.
You offered a trapdoor lined with expectations.

I required written communication.
You insisted on performance.

I named the exclusion.
You punished the diagnosis.

This is not “non-engagement.”
It’s exclusion, dressed up in procedural couture.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (IGNORED, AS EVER):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Your refusal is now formal.
Your evasion is now archived.

Polly Chromatic
Denied services. Denying your excuses.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

When Silence Is the Only Accommodation You Won’t Offer.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024
I’M NOT AVOIDING THERAPY. YOU’RE AVOIDING ACCESS.
Also Titled: “When Silence Is the Only Accommodation You Won’t Offer.”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic, Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Under: Therapy Denial · Institutional Inaccessibility · Verbal Disability · Community Exclusion · Communication Barriers · Mental Health Discrimination · SWANK Correctional Filing

To: Kirsty Hornal
Cc: Dr Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi, Laura Savage, Simon O'Meara
Bcc: Nannette Nicholson, Curator of Access Denied

💬 THE MESSAGE YOU RECEIVED—AND STILL FAILED TO DECODE:

“I’d love to go to therapy but no one will provide adjustments for my disability needs, and this limits my ability as well as my kids’ ability to integrate into the community at all.”
“It is not our problem. It is your community’s problem.”
“You keep expecting us to behave like people who don’t have a disability—and we can’t.”
“I think someone needs to call the mental health practice and help them understand that I can’t explain everything verbally, since they couldn’t understand when I told them, apparently.”

🧠 TRANSLATED FOR THE VERBALLY DEPENDENT, ACCESS-ILLITERATE PROFESSIONALS:

I requested therapy with adjustments.
You offered verbal performance instead.
I disclosed my communication needs.
You pathologised my precision.
I named exclusion.
You escalated it.

🗣 ACCESS STATEMENT—STILL UNREAD, STILL UNMET:

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

You offer assessments with no access.
You offer support with no structure.
And then you call us “noncompliant.”

📎 CLOSING NOTE FOR FUTURE TRIBUNALS:

This isn’t therapy avoidance.
It’s documentation of access denial masquerading as care.
Your system resents the quiet.
Mine will publish it.

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

No, It’s Not My Problem. It’s Yours.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024

I’D LOVE TO GO TO THERAPY—IF ANY OF YOU UNDERSTOOD ACCESS.

Also titled: “The Community Doesn’t Include Us Because It Wasn’t Designed To.”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic, Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Filed Under: Therapy Refusal · Disability Adjustment Failure · Mental Health Access Denied · Community Barriers · Verbal Communication Misconduct · SWANK Institutional Access Register

🪞 WHAT I SAID (CLEARLY—AND IN WRITING):

“I’d love to go to therapy but no one will provide adjustments for my disability needs, and this limits my ability as well as my kids’ ability to integrate into the community at all.”
“It is not our problem. It is your community’s problem.”
“You keep expecting us to behave like people who don’t have a disability—and we can’t.”
“I think someone needs to call the mental health practice and help them understand that I can’t explain everything verbally, since they couldn’t understand when I told them, apparently.”

🧠 WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS (FOR THE ACCESS-ILLITERATE):

I’m not “resisting support.”
I’m excluded from it—on architectural, not emotional, grounds.

Access isn’t an attitude problem.
It’s a planning failure.
Your services were not built for people like me.
So don’t perform shock when I walk past your inaccessibility and say: no, thank you.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (INCLUDED. IGNORED. ARCHIVED.):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

You require verbalism like it’s a sacred rite.
I offer clarity in writing.
You respond with silence—or blame.

📣 CLOSING REMARK FOR THE LEGALLY AND SOCIALLY UNTRAINED:

You do not get to bar entry and label us disengaged.
You do not get to erase exclusion by reframing it as refusal.
You do not get to design failure and pin it on the disabled.

This is not a therapy gap.
It’s a compliance gap.

—

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

I’m Efficient. You’re Defensive.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024
IF YOU CAN’T TAKE EMAILS, YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE A JOB.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Rejection of Access · Email Suppression · Institutional Weakness · Police Intolerance · Psychologist Avoidance · Writing as Breathing · Telepathic Preference

✉️ THE EMAIL THAT WAS “TOO MUCH” FOR PROFESSIONALS:

“I’m having a hard time reading written communication from anyone because I’m met with rejection so often and it’s traumatising and heartbreaking for me.”
“Such as the mental health centre and psychologist and police responding by telling me to stop emailing them when I’m trying to explain my perspective in the best way I can without compromising my ability to talk and breathe.”
“I can’t explain all of this verbally repeatedly and I can’t email each person and explain it repeatedly either because I have four kids to homeschool and care for and I have to also work.”
“I have to be as efficient as possible.”

This is not a tantrum.
It is a compressed survival dispatch.

🧠 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES, TRANSLATED:

🙉 “Please stop emailing us.”
🙈 “We’re too overwhelmed to read.”
🙊 “Just talk to us—never mind your lungs.”

🧬 ACCESS STATEMENT (WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO VIOLATE):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

If email causes you stress,
you should not be in public service.
Because disability access is not a lifestyle request—
it is a legal right.

📝 FINAL NOTE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF Inbox Fragility:

I write to preserve breath.
You recoil from formatting.
I email to streamline survival.
You call it excessive.

If you cannot cope with correspondence,
step away from other people’s lives.

Polly Chromatic
Reading, writing, resisting. Efficient despite you.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com

I’m Done Explaining My Voice to the Uncooperative.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 6 December 2024
I’LL LEARN SIGN LANGUAGE—BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Verbal Disability · Sign Language Refusal · Access Denied · Medical Exhaustion · Hostile Engagement · Telepathic Preference · Westminster Neglect · SWANK Sovereign Silence Archive

🖐 WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:

“I think I’m just going to learn sign language because it’s too much talking for me and people are hostile and won’t listen or provide adjustments unless I refuse to speak altogether.”
“Everyone refuses to provide me adjustments when I begin to need them, which is when they decide they want to argue.”
“It makes me very sick to have to continuously talk to extra people.”
“I don’t even talk to my own friends verbally because it hurts.”
“It’s only hostile people who are uncooperative.”
“Everyone else is happy to help.”

💬 TRANSLATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT-AVOIDANT:

I already know American Sign Language.
You could’ve arranged for British Sign Language support.
You didn’t.
You wanted a debate—not a dialogue.
You demanded speech—so you could pretend confusion.

This wasn’t a failure of funding.
It was a failure of basic dignity.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (NEVER HONOURED):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

So you staged every encounter like a courtroom cross-examination—
then pretended the access note didn’t exist.

🔁 CLOSING CLARITY:

“It hurts too much to talk to waste time arguing with hostile people.”

So I won’t.
Not in your preferred medium.
Not under duress.
Not while bleeding oxygen for your ego.

Polly Chromatic
Silenced by your systems. Fluent in self-respect.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com

They Had the Notice. They Had the Report. Then Came the PLO.

⟡ “We Refused to Cooperate. They Retaliated Anyway.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Forwards Formal Refusal Letter and Police Report Against Kirsty Hornal to Legal Counsel, After Sending to Westminster and RBKC Officers

Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_Email_LauraSavage_RefusalNotice_PoliceReport_Kirsty_CooperationTermination.pdf
Summary: Forwarded email confirming delivery of refusal notice and police report against Kirsty Hornal to Merali Beedle and Blackfords, securing legal service and timeline verification.

I. What Happened

On 18 February 2025, Polly Chromatic (then writing under her legal name) sent a formal email titled:

“Formal Notice of Refusal to Cooperate Due to Failure to Accommodate My Disability, Emotional/Psychological Abuse, and Harm to My Family”

She attached:

A Refusal to Cooperate Letter
A Police Report against Kirsty Hornal

Recipients:

Legal counsel: Laura Savage and Simon O’Meara
CC’d: Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Samira Issa, Glen Peache, Philip Reid (NHS), and multiple safeguarding officers at Westminster and RBKC

This confirmed that:

All relevant actors received the refusal and police documentation
Legal service was secure and traceable
PLO retaliation occurred after these notices — confirming retaliatory motive

II. What the Record Establishes

• The refusal to cooperate and police complaint were submitted before safeguarding threats
• All actors — from Sarah Newman to NHS and lawyers — were copied
• Laura Savage was formally briefed for future legal defence
• The file functions as a service record and legal timeline anchor
• It proves that Westminster’s next step (the PLO) came after full awareness of the harm they were causing

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because refusal to cooperate is a legal right, not a trigger for escalation.
Because forwarding it to counsel is the act that turns harm into evidence.
Because this email will appear in court before the PLO letter does.

SWANK logs every refusal the system ignored — and every silence it responded to with force.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a refusal after abuse is defiance.
We do not accept that legal notice is a loophole for retaliation.
We do not accept that this chain can be denied — because we filed it.

This wasn’t refusal. It was documentation.
And SWANK marked the day cooperation ended — and retaliation began.

⟡ 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.

⟡ “I Won’t Make the Police Report You Asked Me To — I’m Too Busy Posting It.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “Verbal Isn’t Required — But Accountability Is.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

To:

🩸 THE DOCTOR’S FIRST DIAGNOSIS? DISBELIEF.

🗣 I SAID I COULDN’T SPEAK. SHE KEPT TALKING.

⏳ “IT’LL BE HOURS”—SPOKEN AS A THREAT, NOT A FACT.

📹 FROM THIS POINT FORWARD: WE DOCUMENT EVERYTHING.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT — IGNORED IN PERSON, PUBLISHED FOR RECORD:

To:

🥀 SHE DIDN’T WANT EVIDENCE. SHE WANTED DOMINANCE.

🗣 I HAD TO SPEAK LOUDLY—NOT IN DEFIANCE, BUT IN DEFENCE.

⏳ THE WAIT WAS WEAPONISED.

🔴 FROM THIS POINT FORWARD: RECORDED. ARCHIVED. SHARED.

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT, RE-PUBLISHED FOR THE INCOMPETENT:

To:

📣 WHAT I SAID (NOT THAT THEY LISTENED):

👶🏽 ON BEHALF OF MY DAUGHTER:

🌀 SYSTEMIC ABUSE, THEN BLAME:

🧠 VERBAL EFFORT IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT YOUR ENTITLEMENT:

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (ETERNALLY NEEDED):

I’D LOVE TO GO TO THERAPY—IF ANY OF YOU UNDERSTOOD ACCESS.

✉️ THE EMAIL THAT WAS “TOO MUCH” FOR PROFESSIONALS:

🧠 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES, TRANSLATED:

🧬 ACCESS STATEMENT (WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO VIOLATE):

📝 FINAL NOTE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF Inbox Fragility:

🖐 WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID:

💬 TRANSLATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT-AVOIDANT:

📎 ACCESS STATEMENT (NEVER HONOURED):

🔁 CLOSING CLARITY:

⟡ “We Refused to Cooperate. They Retaliated Anyway.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

Documented Obsessions