The Donkeys Are Not My Waste Management Strategy

 🗑 SWANK Dispatch: I Live in a House, Not a Hurricane Casualty — Pick Up My Trash

🗓️ 16 July 2020

Filed Under: waste management failure, asthma accommodation, basic services denied, infrastructure neglect, environmental injustice, public health risk, municipal inaction, disability rights

---

“We live in the brown houses.
We are not ruins. We are residents.
Please pick up the trash.”
— A Mother with Eosinophilic Asthma and Zero Municipal Support

---

This polite but pointed letter from Polly Chromatic to Mr. Kendrick Neely, head of Environmental Health in Providenciales, is more than a waste collection request — it is an exposure of municipal failure to serve high-risk residents in the aftermath of hurricane damage.

---

🧾 I. The Situation, Summarised

• Polly lives on Palm Grove, Grand Turk

• Trash trucks pass nearby, but never drive down her road

• She has no car — she bikes with four children

• The other houses were destroyed in a hurricane, but hers is inhabited

• She has severe eosinophilic asthma, making physical strain and waste exposure dangerous

• She recycles most waste — but needs basic pickup services for remaining trash

• Wild donkeys are tearing into the uncollected trash, creating public health and environmental hazards

---

🚨 II. She Asks for One Simple Thing:

“Please tell me what day and time I should expect them so I can put my trash out.”

Because she’s not trying to complain.
She’s trying to participate.
But the state has already decided her street doesn’t count — and her lungs are left to pay the price.

---

You Broke the Lockdown, Then Blamed My Compost Toilet

 🏡 SWANK Dispatch: Pandemic Protocols Are Not Optional—Even for the State

🗓️ 26 March 2020

Filed Under: covid regulation breach, emergency powers violation, unauthorised home entry, high-risk health exposure, environmental complaint, disrespectful visit, asthma risk ignored, government misconduct

---

“We were in the middle of eating lunch during a pandemic.
You entered anyway.
Unmasked. Uninvited. Unjustified.”
— A Mother Filing a COVID-Era Environmental Complaint

---

This letter from Polly Chromatic to Mr. Kendrick Neely at the Environmental Health Department is a formally composed yet seething account of a government visit that violated the law, her body, and her family’s safety.

The visit, conducted by social workers, was unannounced and intrusive — taking place on the very day the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force.

---

⚖️ I. The Regulations Say: Stay Out

According to law:

• Only essential workers could leave home

• Social distancing was required

• Visits had to be limited to urgent, essential duties

• ID had to be shown

• No entry to private homes was permitted except by health officers under lawful process

None of these conditions were met.

Instead:

• Two unmasked women entered her home

• They stood less than six feet from her and her children

• They arrived while the family was eating, maximising viral exposure

• They ignored her explicit verbal refusal

---

🌡️ II. What Was at Stake

• Polly is clinically vulnerable with severe asthma
• Her home was the only controlled airspace she had
• She was trying to protect four small children during a global health crisis
• The state showed up anyway — and treated her caution as defiance

“They are supposed to be protecting my children.
Instead, they put them at risk.”

---

🌍 III. The Department’s Own Mission Statement

The Environmental Health Department claims it is devoted to:

“assess, maintain, and improve the health and safety of the environment and residents.”

So why was Polly left to enforce public health law alone, against government staff?

---

If You Want Peace, Don’t Weaponise Airbnb and Bad Manners

 🧱 SWANK Dispatch: The Fence, the Eavesdrop, and the Never-Ending Inquiry

🗓️ 13 July 2020

Filed Under: fabricated reports, eavesdropping neighbours, institutional stagnation, asthma risk, privacy violations, homeschool disruption, faux concern, gendered miscommunication

---

“How long must a woman endure investigation for surviving a neighbour’s tantrum?”
— The Mother Who Was Threatened for Disliking a Fence

Dear Swank Reader,

The 2020 lockdowns gave many a taste of constrained freedom. For some of us, the cage came with inspectors, neighbours who throw tantrums, and a year-long child welfare investigation based on a comment about a wall.

On the 13th of July, 2020, I—Polly Chromatic, still of Palm Grove, still under siege—responded in writing to Ashley Adams-Forbes, whose child had only just been born, while mine had been targeted repeatedly under the pretence of “concern.”

Let us examine what social services in Providenciales found so shocking:
• That I dislike being surveilled by neighbours
• That I object to assault and verbal threats in front of my children
• That I homeschool and compost
• That I requested Covid precautions due to eosinophilic asthma

Apparently, all of this warranted ongoing scrutiny. Meanwhile, the neighbour who ripped down my sign, threatened violence, and made up false vaccination reports was free to continue with Airbnb hosting and public slander.

---

🚩 I. The Complaint Was the Consequence of Her Own Eavesdropping

She overheard me speaking with my mother about vaccine schedules and invented an entire safeguarding narrative.

What’s more interesting is that the only complaints ever come from her — only when she’s in residence. Her transitory guests were more polite, respectful, and communicative than she ever was.

---

💡 II. Social Work, But Make It Sexist

Despite being the children’s primary caregiver, educator, and intellectual guardian, social workers deliberately bypassed me and tried speaking to my husband instead — a man I openly stated is not a good communicator. How is that protective?

This was not miscommunication. It was intentional gendered misdirection.

---

🦠 III. Disregard for My Medical Safety

In early 2020, amidst the growing global panic, social workers walked onto my property uninvited, despite my clear boundaries and my life-threatening condition. No masks. No caution. Only institutional entitlement.

One year of surveillance. Zero updates. No care for risk. No respect for the routine of a homeschooling mother of four. But they say it’s for protection.

---

📘 Final Words:

“I’m trying to educate my children and write books,” I said.
What I wanted was peace. What I received was intrusion.
If this is what “support” looks like, I’ll take solitude.

---

You Withheld Breath and Called It Policy.

---

⟡ Assault on Asthma: When a Pharmacy Withholds Breath During Quarantine ⟡

Filed: 15 April 2021
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2021-PHARMACY-DENIAL
📎 Download PDF — 2021-04-15_SWANK_TCI_GraceBayPharmacy_MedicationDenial_COVIDRisk_AssaultOnAsthma.pdf

---

I. A Pandemic. A Quarantine. A Pharmacy That Withheld the Cure.

This document records a formal complaint against Grace Bay Pharmacy, filed after staff:

• Refused to dispense life-sustaining asthma medication

• Demanded in-person contact during a government-enforced quarantine

• Allegedly retaliated when their demand was declined — despite written prescription, vulnerability status, and documented respiratory illness

What followed was not confusion. It was clinical negligence, framed in customer service language.

They didn’t withhold antibiotics.
They withheld breath.

---

II. The Context They Pretended Not to Understand

• The patient was shielding

• The medication was for Eosinophilic Asthma

• The request was prepaid, written, and lawful

• The refusal occurred during a respiratory pandemic

Instead of care, the pharmacy demanded:

“Come inside.”

As if the laws of infection and the laws of pharmacology were optional.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because medication denial is not an inconvenience.
It is a form of procedural assault.

This complaint was submitted not for reconciliation, but for record.

It documents:

• The refusal to deliver

• The demand for unnecessary exposure

• The pharmacist’s later attempt to minimise the incident as “confusion”

• And the systemic lack of safeguarding for disabled, high-risk patients in crisis

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe pharmacists are above pandemic protocol.
We do not tolerate the minimisation of medical risk.
We do not consider retail politeness an excuse for institutional harm.

Let the record show:

• The medication was needed

• The prescription was valid

• The request was lawful

• The refusal — was filed

This was not a misunderstanding.
It was COVID-era negligence wrapped in pharmacy branding.

---

---

---

This Wasn’t About Attendance. It Was About Control.

---

⟡ We Notified You of Medical Risk. You Sent an Attendance Warning. ⟡

Filed: 3 May 2022
Reference: SWANK/EDU/2022-DRAYTON-ANNABELLE
📎 Download PDF — 2022-05-03_SWANK_DraytonParkSchool_AttendanceLetter_Annabelle_MonitoringPretext.pdf

---

I. The Reply to Illness Was Surveillance

This letter from Drayton Park Primary School is many things:

• Formatted with courtesy

• Drenched in policy language

• Seemingly benign

But it is, in fact, a procedural smokescreen — sent in response not to neglect or truancy, but to a parent’s prior disclosures of documented medical vulnerability.

You raised a health alert.
They raised a spreadsheet.

---

II. What the Letter Does (and Doesn’t) Say

It references:

• Attendance thresholds

• Code H

• Authorised absences

It does not reference:

• Medical conditions

• Disability risk

• The child’s asthma status

• Prior communications

It is, as ever, the standard reply to complexity: flatten it into a metric.

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because attendance letters are no longer neutral.
Because they now function as pre-safeguarding positioning tools, often sent after parents disclose medical concern or lawful refusal of in-person contact.

Because when you read enough of them, they all start to whisper:

We’re watching — but we won’t acknowledge what we see.

This is not just paperwork. It is soft jurisdictional threat, typeset in school stationery.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept attendance enforcement as a proxy for procedural intimidation.
We do not consider polite formatting to be protection.
We do not confuse concern for compliance.

Let the record show:

• The child was medically vulnerable

• The absences were lawful

• The tone was disciplinary

• And the letter — was archived

---

---

---