⟡ “I’m Concerned About Your Mental Health” — When the Social Worker Becomes the Stalker ⟡
On the institutional obsession with one incident, and the bureaucratic refusal to let it die
Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/MEDREFERRAL-20240209
📎 Download PDF – 2024-02-09_HarassmentByRBKC_SamiraIssa_UnlawfulMedicalReferral.pdf
Summary: Polly Chromatic responds to repeated social worker contact from RBKC regarding an incident already addressed and documented — accusing the council of harassment and professional misconduct.
I. What Happened
On 8 February 2024, social worker Samira Issa from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea contacted Polly Chromatic regarding a referral made by Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.
The basis?
A rehashing of the same 2 November 2023 incident at St Thomas’ Hospital — an event that had already been raised, clarified, filed, and archived.
Polly responded firmly the next day, stating that she was “tired of being harassed for the same thing over and over,” and that she was concerned for Issa’s mental health given the obsessive repetition.
She reminded Issa (again) that she cannot communicate by phone due to her documented asthma and vocal injury, and demanded no further contact — citing both disability and legal escalation.
This email followed a pattern:
An initial fabrication.
An endless referral loop.
A refusal to close the file — no matter how many times the matter is already closed.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Unlawful repetition of safeguarding referrals without new basis
Retaliatory fixation on a disproven incident for the purpose of keeping a case open
Failure to acknowledge written disability accommodations
Use of recycled referrals to create the illusion of new concern
Harassment by professionals under the guise of outreach
Deliberate provocation designed to exhaust, confuse, or trigger legal error
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is the bureaucratic version of stalking:
When a woman says “stop contacting me” and the institution says,
“Just one more check-in. Just one more follow-up. Just one more fake concern.”
SWANK archives this because the harm is not just in the false referral —
it’s in the repetition, the refusal to disengage, the use of formal tone to mask obsessive interest.
You cannot say “we care” while refusing to stop sending emails about an event you’ve already used as the basis for legal interference.
You cannot call this safeguarding when it reads like harassment.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour disability-related communication adjustments
Article 8, ECHR – Invasion of family and private life without lawful justification
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding for institutional retribution
GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 – Reprocessing of medical and personal data without legitimate grounds
Social Work England Code of Ethics – Harassment disguised as concern
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a referral. It was an institutional loop — designed to entrap.
We reject fake follow-ups on matters already disproven.
We reject outreach cloaked in legal risk.
We reject safeguarding frameworks that allow obsession to be dignified as oversight.
If a woman says stop — and the council sends another referral — it is no longer care. It is surveillance.
And we will document it as such, every time.
⟡ 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.
⟡ 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.