“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 communication rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication rights. Show all posts

Chromatic v. Hornal & Westminster – On the Jurisprudence of Ignored Emails and Disability Denial


⟡ “Too Many Emails” Is Not a Legal Rebuttal ⟡
How Westminster Weaponised Disability-Compliant Communication as a Procedural Offence

Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/ADD-EMAILVOL-0625
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-06-30_SWANK_Addendum_EmailVolume_LawfulAdvocacyPattern.pdf
Addendum rebutting Westminster’s complaint about email volume from a medically-exempt parent

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services claimed that over 350 emails sent by the Applicant — Polly Chromatic — constituted excessive or inappropriate communication.

This occurred despite the fact that:

  • All communications were written due to a lawful medical exemption (muscle tension dysphonia and severe asthma).

  • The Applicant had repeatedly and formally explained this accommodation to Westminster.

  • The content of the emails addressed urgent safeguarding failures, medical updates, and educational evidence.

  • The social workers — most notably Kirsty Hornal — ignored these communications, failed to act on evidence, and escalated interventions without legal basis.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability discrimination by minimising lawful accommodations
• Retaliatory framing — the parent was penalised for using the only communication method available to her
• Institutional gaslighting — baiting responses, then citing those responses as misconduct
• Neglect of substance — the focus on “email volume” masks the complete disregard of content
• Violation of dignity and procedural fairness — by expecting a chronically ill mother to repeat herself endlessly to a system that doesn’t read

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the absurdity of this accusation — “you emailed us too much while parenting four children with chronic illness and being ignored by the state” — would be laughable if it weren’t violently real.

Because documentation is not misconduct.

Because if institutions refuse to read, then we will write it into the record.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010: Discriminatory failure to honour medical communication accommodations

  • Article 8, ECHR: Unjustified interference with family life through administrative harassment

  • Safeguarding Failures: Ignoring submitted medical and educational documentation

  • Procedural Retaliation: Punishing written advocacy instead of addressing its content

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd affirms that:

  • Polly Chromatic’s communications were lawful, responsive, and necessary.

  • The “volume” of emails reflects procedural neglect, not personal dysfunction.

  • Repeated escalation by Westminster — while ignoring evidence — proves a pattern of retaliation.

  • It is institutionally dishonest to provoke a response then claim victimhood when one arrives.

SWANK writes what others ignore. And we will write it again, if necessary — not because we enjoy it, but because they don’t listen.


No comments:

⟡ Chromatic v Met Police: Midnight Isn’t Reasonable Adjustment ⟡


⟡ “The Police Came at 11PM. I Was Asleep. They Came Anyway.” ⟡
Email exchange documenting police visit to disabled mother’s home at night — and her formal objection to future in-person attendance

Filed: 14 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/METROPOLITAN/POLICE-VISIT-DISPUTE
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-04-14_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_StatementObjection_DisabilityBoundary.pdf
Email requesting statement handover to avoid in-person visits, citing disability, homeschooling, and surveillance safeguards

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Polly Chromatic received a response from Detective Sergeant George Thorpe of the Metropolitan Police, confirming that PC Kirsty Russell was the investigating officer for her report. The reply followed Polly’s 12 April 2025 message raising serious concerns about an unannounced late-night police visit to her home, despite:

  • Her medically documented communication limitations

  • Her four children being asleep during home education hours

  • The existence of a pre-written statement to avoid verbal engagement

Polly politely requested that the statement be relayed to the attending officers and reiterated that, unless absolutely necessary, she does not consent to unplanned police visits due to medical, safety, and trauma-related reasons.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Failure to respect disability-based written communication adjustment; late-night visit without notice

  • Human impact: Trauma exposure, sleep disruption, and heightened anxiety in a disabled household under harassment watch

  • Power dynamics: Attempted forced verbal interaction despite clear documented limits

  • Institutional failure: Ignoring previous documentation, disability status, and safeguarding boundaries

  • Unacceptable conduct: Treating written statements as insufficient solely because they do not offer real-time compliance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should be woken up at 11pm by the state.
Because there is no policy justification for showing up unannounced at the home of a disabled mother of four — when a statement was already provided.
Because the system will not acknowledge that written statements are not avoidance — they are accommodation.
Because this email is not about the event. It is about the expectation: that disabled people should still speak.

This archive entry is an act of quiet defiance — the kind that only appears after the doorbell rings too many times.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments; disability discrimination in public service

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful intrusion into private life, especially during family rest hours

  • Code of Ethics – College of Policing, Standards 1 & 4 – respect for rights, integrity, and public trust

  • Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) – failure to anticipate and accommodate known disability needs

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that officers can knock at 11PM with no explanation.
We do not accept that trauma, disability, or documented boundaries can be ignored for administrative convenience.
We do not accept that presence is proof of protection.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was state intrusion, veiled in politeness, carried out in silence, and now filed with fury.

⟡ 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:

Ten Years of Educational Sabotage Masquerading as Child Protection.


๐Ÿ–‹ ๐’ฎ๐’ฒ๐’œ๐’ฉ๐’ฆ Dispatch | 30 January 2025
YOUR VISITS TEACH NOTHING EXCEPT HOW TO RESENT AUTHORITY.

๐Ÿ“ Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
๐Ÿ—‚ Filed Under: Homeschool Disruption · No-Show Social Workers · Bureaucratic Interference · Learning Environment Sabotage · SWANK Education Interruption Register

To:

Kirsty Hornal, Philip Reid, Laura Savage, Gideon Mpalanyi

๐Ÿ“š THIS IS NOT SCHOOL SUPPORT. THIS IS SYSTEMIC OBSTRUCTION.

“It’s been very disruptive to homeschooling to have social workers disrupting our day for ten years for no reason…”

You have contributed nothing to our curriculum but delay, doubt, and distrust.
Where there should be algebra, there is agenda.
Where there should be books, there is bureaucratic blather.
Your presence is neither requested nor required—nor, apparently, ever properly scheduled.

๐Ÿ•ฐ NO-SHOWS AS A FORM OF DOMINATION

“…and all the no shows are irritating to us all.”

No-shows are not neutral.
They are passive-aggressive power plays masquerading as oversight.
You schedule. You vanish.
And we are left explaining your absence to children more punctual than the state.

๐Ÿ“Ž VERBAL REFUSAL REITERATED (FOR THE RECORD YOU NEVER READ)

“Please Note: I cannot speak verbally. Please email only. I do not own a phone.”

Still valid. Still ignored.
Still filed under: Institutional Ableism.
Failure to honour a basic medical adjustment is not a slip-up. It is a statutory breach.

Polly Chromatic
Headmistress of the Unbothered. Historian of Harassment.
๐Ÿ“ Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
๐ŸŒ www.swankarchive.com
๐Ÿ“ง director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Absences Accounted For.


No comments: