“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
Showing posts with label administrative avoidance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label administrative avoidance. Show all posts

Formal Proof, Informal Platform — When Messenger Became the Ministry

 📱 SWANK Dispatch: Exhibit A Confirmed — The Facebook Files

🗓️ Dated Evidence: June 2017

Filed Under: digital records, educational compliance, neglected documentation, truancy retaliation, government inaccessibility, homeschool approval, informal formality

“If Messenger conversations can be used against mothers, they can certainly be used to protect them.”
— A Mother Who Screenshot Her Way Through Stonewalls

With the release of “2017.06 Mark Facebook.pdf”, Exhibit A is no longer anecdotal. It is primary evidence — a real-time documentation of Polly Chromatic’s compliance, clarity, and repeated requests for formal homeschool recognition.

This isn’t a chat.
It’s a procedural timeline, dressed in Messenger blue.

🧾 I. What It Confirms

• Date of initial outreach to Mark Garland: 15 June 2017
• Content: Requests for guidance, contact number provided, calls followed up
• Tone: Respectful, consistent, thorough
• Barriers: No response, missed calls, rescheduled calls, postponed action
• Proof of:

  • Intent to comply

  • Repeated attempts to formalise

  • Institutional avoidance

⚖️ II. Why It Matters

Polly was accused of being “unregistered.”
This file proves she was actively seeking registration — months before the state escalated.

Mark Garland’s pattern of delayed follow-through and non-issuance of official letters forms the very foundation of the maladministration and harassment complaints filed across 2020.

📌 Final Analysis:

Exhibit A shows:

  • She followed the chain of command.

  • She complied without coercion.

  • She was failed by those who promised clarity and delivered confusion.

The system said she didn’t ask properly.
This file says otherwise.


No comments:

You Received the Request. You Chose Not to Reply.


⟡ How Many Times Must I Ask to Homeschool Before You Stop Calling It Neglect? ⟡

Filed: 7 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-EDUCATION-HOWELL
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-07_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingHarassment_LegalPetition_EdgarHowell.pdf

I. This Was Not a Request. It Was a Formal Reminder That I Already Complied.

This letter was sent to Mr. Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Turks and Caicos Islands, following years of:

  • Lawful homeschooling requests

  • Meticulously filed documentation

  • Repeated educational reports

  • And in return: truancy threats, safeguarding innuendo, and zero policy follow-through

What began as consent became suspicion.
What should’ve ended in confirmation became harassment.
And what you ignored, SWANK filed.

II. Facebook Was More Procedural Than the Ministry

The letter documents:

  • Attempts to register homeschooling through formal channels

  • Requests for written acknowledgement of lawful exemption

  • Staff responding through informal apps

  • No confirmation. No closure. No accountability.

Instead, the state defaulted to:

  • Monitoring

  • Threat

  • “Welfare visits”

  • And professional disdain veiled as outreach

This is not education policy.
This is digital avoidance stitched to analog power trips.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should be punished for following the law.
Because homeschooling is not a safeguarding issue.
Because neglecting a reply is not the same as neglecting a child.

Let the record show:

  • The parent submitted everything

  • The department responded with nothing

  • And still tried to escalate concern

  • Until this letter — filed it all

This is not a gentle reminder.
It is legal recoil, dressed in calm paragraphs.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse paperwork silence with innocence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a substitute for policy.
We do not permit institutional vagueness to justify familial distress.

Let the record show:

The family complied.
The Ministry deflected.
And SWANK wrote it down — before they could rewrite the timeline.




No comments:

IOPC File Number Issued. No Protection Supplied.


⟡ Acknowledged, Then Abandoned: The Art of the Regulatory Pass-Back ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-007090
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_IOPC_Acknowledgement_MetPoliceComplaint_Ref2025-007090_NoActionImplied.pdf

I. The IOPC Responded. But Only Just.

This letter marks the formal receipt of complaint 2025/007090, filed against the Metropolitan Police Service — and promptly returned, jurisdictionally speaking, back to them.

What it includes:

  • A reference number

  • A procedural summary

  • A polite tone of removed concern

What it does not include:

  • Safeguarding of the complainant

  • Interim protection

  • Any sign that escalation means consequence

It is acknowledgement without intervention.
Format over follow-through.

II. “The Police Will Now Handle Your Complaint About the Police”

This letter confirms:

  • That the Met Police will “review” their own conduct

  • That the IOPC has passed along your evidence

  • That nothing — not trauma, not discrimination, not medical risk — triggered automatic oversight

It is the regulatory equivalent of a smile and a shrug.

What begins in breach ends in a bureaucratic loop.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because acknowledgement without action is its own form of administrative violence.
Because referencing a case number means nothing if the process is designed to collapse.
Because the very agencies meant to shield you from retaliation refer you straight back to the source of harm.

Let the record show:

  • The complaint was filed

  • The reply was received

  • The risk was unchanged

  • And SWANK — filed the reply, not the reassurance

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse correspondence with justice.
We do not consider case numbers a substitute for protection.
We do not permit regulators to feign neutrality when neutrality enables abuse.

Let the record show:

The complaint was real.
The reference was issued.
The responsibility was deflected.
And SWANK — archived the abdication.

This is not oversight.
It is procedural disappearance, styled as concern.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions