⟡ “You Keep Expecting Us to Behave Like People Who Don’t Have a Disability” ⟡
*A Formal Rejection of Adjustment Denial Disguised as Service Provision
Filed: 24 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EMAIL-10
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_TherapyAccessDenied_VerbalDisabilityComplaint.pdf
Email documenting inability to access therapy due to verbal disability exclusion. Highlights failure of local services to accommodate and the structural bias embedded in mental health provision.
I. What Happened
In this message, Polly Chromatic addressed GP Philip Reid, social worker Kirsty Hornal, and others to clarify that she was willing to engage in therapy — but blocked by a system that refused to adjust for her disability.
The issue was not internal motivation. It was external rigidity.
“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.”
And the indictment was precise:
“It is not our problem. It is your community’s problem.”
She closed with a direct call to action: someone needed to contact the mental health provider to explain — again — that she could not speak verbally.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Disability adjustments were not honoured by mental health professionals
Verbal-only service models remain structurally exclusionary
Denial of access is misframed as client unwillingness or dysfunction
Parental participation and child integration are harmed by discriminatory design
The refusal to understand is the disability — not the disability itself
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because mental health services claim to treat distress — while structurally enforcing it.
This email documents the precise moment where a disabled parent requests therapy, is excluded from it due to systemic non-accommodation, and is then subtly framed as the barrier to their own wellbeing.
SWANK logs this because no one should have to explain — repeatedly, in writing — why they can't speak aloud in order to be allowed to heal.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t refusal.
It was a boundary rejected because it made the system uncomfortable.
We do not accept that a person must speak to access psychological care.
We do not accept that “community integration” means impersonating the non-disabled.
We will document every offer of participation that was turned into an accusation.
⟡ 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.