⟡ “I Sent the Agenda. They Just Didn’t Read It.” ⟡
When you prepare for a meeting you’re not allowed to attend — because attending would make you sick.
Filed: 24 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-AGENDA-01
๐ Download PDF – 2025-04-24_SWANK_PLOAgenda_DisabilityAdjustmentRequest_EqualityActNotice.pdf
This written agenda was submitted in advance of a Pre-Proceedings (PLO) meeting by Polly Chromatic, in full compliance with the Equality Act 2010. The meeting? Designed by Westminster social workers. The agenda? Designed to protect against them. It clarified rights, rebutted claims, and requested adjustments. It was ignored.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic submitted a fully structured, written agenda to Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown before the scheduled PLO meeting.
She made it clear:
– She has medically exempted verbal speech
– She must communicate in writing
– She was not refusing participation — she was upholding lawful access
She addressed every allegation.
She corrected procedural missteps.
She reminded them of her rights.
They proceeded anyway — as though it hadn’t happened.
II. What the Document Establishes
That a medically safe method of engagement was submitted before the meeting
That Polly’s speech-based disability was clearly explained and legally grounded
That the document included missing records, agenda items, and participation notes
That Westminster proceeded without honouring the submission
That this was not a refusal to cooperate — it was a demand to cooperate lawfully
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because silence is not absence — especially when it's submitted in PDF.
Because the Equality Act exists for exactly this reason.
Because the refusal to speak isn’t a refusal to engage — it’s a clinical boundary.
And because this document is what compliance looks like when the system refuses to listen.
IV. Violations Identified
Breach of Section 20 Equality Act 2010 (Failure to make reasonable adjustments)
Procedural discrimination against disabled parent under safeguarding context
Mischaracterisation of lawful written response as “non-engagement”
Neglect of medically exempted parent’s participation rights
Misuse of PLO framework to escalate in the face of legal compliance
V. SWANK’s Position
They asked Polly to attend.
She said she couldn’t — but wrote it all down.
They ignored the document.
They ignored the law.
And now, they get this instead:
A perfect little agenda. Filed. Time-stamped. And available to the public.
She showed up. Just not how they wanted.
⟡ 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.