⟡ FORMAL RESPONSE TO CIN VISIT REQUEST – DISABILITY ADJUSTMENT & LEGAL FILINGS ⟡
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CIN-REFUSAL/2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-22_Core_PC-119_WCC_FinalRefusal_CINVisit_DisabilityAdjustment.pdf
Summary: The decisive letter sent to Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal, confirming that all further in-person or verbal contact constitutes harassment under the Equality Act 2010. This filing transformed medical documentation, police reports, and live litigation into a single act of jurisdictional refusal — the first written “No” elevated to procedural art.
I. What Happened
On 22 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) delivered a formal letter to Westminster Children’s Services refusing all CIN visit requests.
The correspondence, copied to external witnesses, cited:
• Eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and PTSD as clinically disabling conditions requiring written-only communication.
• The psychiatric report of Dr Irfan Rafiq (26 Nov 2024) formally prescribing that adjustment.
• Four active police reports (BCA-10622-25-0101-IR; BCA-25130-25-0101-IR; BCA-25249-25-0101-IR; ROC-10237-25-0101-IR) detailing coercion, encrypted contact, and retaliation.
• Three ongoing legal proceedings: an N1 Civil Claim, N16A Injunction, and N461 Judicial Review.
The letter closed with surgical courtesy:
“Continued requests for CIN visits or contact in any form other than written-only will be treated as unlawful harassment.
I remain open to lawful, written-only communication by post or unencrypted email.”
Thus, “No” became law.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That Westminster’s CIN requests breached the Equality Act 2010 (ss 15, 19, 20, 27) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Arts 6, 8, 14).
• That verbal and in-person contact constituted harassment after formal notice of medical adjustment.
• That the claimant remains compliant and transparent while the local authority remains defiant and unlawful.
• That disability documentation, once ignored, becomes jurisdictional evidence.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To enshrine the moment a disabled parent asserted legal sovereignty through grammar.
• To prove that the right to refuse contact is the right to breathe without permission.
• To demonstrate that evidence can be both medically factual and aesthetically devastating.
• Because bureaucracy thrives on confusion — and clarity is its undoing.
IV. Legal and Medical Framework
Statutes Invoked
• Equality Act 2010 – ss 15, 19, 20, 27 (disability discrimination, harassment, reasonable adjustment).
• Children Act 1989 – s 17 (misuse of safeguarding powers).
• Human Rights Act 1998 – Arts 6, 8, 14 (fair process, private life, non-discrimination).
Clinical Evidence
• Dr Irfan Rafiq, Consultant Psychiatrist – 26 Nov 2024: confirmed written-only communication adjustment.
• Confirmed diagnoses: Eosinophilic Asthma, Sewer-Gas-Induced Dysphonia, PTSD linked to institutional harassment.
V. SWANK’s Position
“The most civilised word in law is No — when typed in 12-point font and served by recorded delivery.”
SWANK London Ltd. affirms that this letter is not a refusal but a jurisdictional boundary: a medical fact rendered into law.
From this date forward, any attempt to breach the adjustment is recorded not as administration but as retaliation.
The archive recognises this moment as the formal inauguration of Written Sovereignty Protocol I.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because refusal is a right.
And clarity is a weapon.