“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 cp conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cp conference. Show all posts

They Said “We Understand” — Then Came Anyway.


⟡ The Email Where I Ask Not to Be Retaliated Against for Being Ill — and They Schedule Another Visit ⟡
“Written adjustments don’t mean you stop harassing me. They mean you write it down.”

Filed: 4 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-04_SWANK_DisabilityAdjustmentRequest_WCC_CPConferenceReschedule.pdf
Disability adjustment request and CP conference deferral submitted to Westminster Children’s Services. Includes direct acknowledgment of written-only protocol and institutional illness.

I. What Happened

On 4 November 2024, the parent formally emailed Westminster Children’s Services to request:

  • A rescheduling of a child protection conference due to illness (parent and child)

  • Recognition of disability-related limits on verbal communication

  • Time to obtain a psychological assessment following trauma caused by state involvement

Despite acknowledging the child’s hospital visit, the parent’s throat condition, and a documented disability adjustment, the response from Kirsty Hornal:

  • Reaffirmed that fortnightly visits would continue anyway

  • Dismissed the impact of social services on the family’s health

  • Suggested she would “speak to the GP surgery” instead of respecting written-only limits

  • Closed the message by complimenting the family’s Halloween costumes

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster staff acknowledged a parent’s disability while actively ignoring its impact

  • That verbal communication was repeatedly pressured despite documented respiratory restrictions

  • That trauma and illness were used as scheduling factors — not as grounds for meaningful procedural accommodation

  • That safeguarding protocol was being pursued in parallel with informal, invalidating correspondence

  • That requests to delay the CP conference due to emergency illness were met with administrative minimisation

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you request a disability adjustment and the institution responds with:

“Until then, fortnightly visits will continue…”

— you’re not having a conversation.
You’re being procedurally managed.

This email is not about rescheduling.
It is about retaliation disguised as routine.

The polite tone doesn’t soften the reality:
Kirsty Hornal was fully aware of the medical and psychiatric conditions involved — and continued protocol without modification.
The adjustment was acknowledged, but never respected.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Failure to implement written-only adjustments for a respiratory disability

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Procedural disregard for child welfare during confirmed illness

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
    Unlawful intrusion into private life while acknowledging medical harm

  • Data Protection Act 2018
    Use of medical disclosures to justify continued contact without consent

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not concern.
This was continuity without consent.

This was not a delay in scheduling.
It was an institutional decision to press forward — regardless of health.

You can’t ignore a disability and cite it in your email.
You can’t say “we understand” and then escalate anyway.
You can’t call it safeguarding if the harm is coming from you.

So now we call it what it is:
Logged.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions