“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Vocal Impairment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vocal Impairment. Show all posts

In Re: The Voice They Wouldn’t Let You Keep – A Grievance on Forcing Speech from a Medically Silenced Parent


⟡ SWANK London Ltd.

Filed Communication Record

“In Re: The Voice They Wouldn’t Let You Keep – A Grievance on Forcing Speech from a Medically Silenced Parent”

Metadata

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Filed on: 19 June 2024
Reference Code: SWANK-2024-FORCING-VOCALCOERCION
PDF Filename: 2024-06-19_SWANK_Email_ForcingSpeech_DisabilityDisregard.pdf
1-Line Summary: An emailed objection to being forced to speak while suffering from medical vocal impairment — sent to Westminster staff.

I. What Happened

On 19 June 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a clear and sharply worded email to Westminster Children’s Services personnel, objecting to continued pressure to speak — despite her documented diagnosis of muscle dysphonia and confirmed medical restrictions on speech.

The email was addressed to:

  • Edward Kendall

  • Fiona Dias-Saxena

  • With CC to solicitor Laura Savage

The subject line was not softened:

“Forcing”

And its content could not be mistaken:

“It is stressful when you continue to force me to talk despite the fact that it makes me sick and physically hurts to talk.”

II. What the Document Establishes

This message was not an outburst. It was a boundary — articulated clearly, medically, and legally.

It underscores:

  • Institutional coercion of a known disability

  • Psychological pressure to perform verbal compliance despite vocal injury

  • Failure to adapt process to communication needs

  • Breach of both the Equality Act and safeguarding duty

And when the injured parent does speak?

“You don’t like that either.”

This is the logic of procedural abuse: silence is called non-engagement, speech is framed as aggression.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because forcing someone to use their voice while they are medically silenced is not miscommunication — it is weaponised misunderstanding.

Because when the ability to speak becomes conditional upon obedience, the duty of care has already been breached.

Because no safeguarding framework is legitimate if it cannot comprehend the phrase:

“Talking makes me sick.”

IV. Violations

  • Disability Discrimination (ECHR Art. 14, Equality Act 2010)

  • Breach of Reasonable Adjustments Duty

  • Safeguarding Conflict and Coercive Engagement

  • Failure to Honour Lawful Medical Exemptions

The email speaks directly to the issue of institutional force disguised as concern — and that’s precisely why it had to be documented.

V. SWANK’s Position

Disability does not expire when an institution becomes impatient.
And communication is not consent — especially when extracted through fear, fatigue, or threat.

This email was a refusal. A red flag. A line drawn.

Now, it is a filed record.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive
Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

⟡ 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.
No comments: