“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 disability surveillance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disability surveillance. Show all posts

Before the Supervision Threat, There Was Stationery.


⟡ The Early Signals Were Administrative ⟡

Filed: 17 November 2022
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/2022-TIMELINE-EARLY
📎 Download PDF — 2022-11-17_SWANK_RBKC_EarlySafeguarding_TimelineAudit_v0.21.pdf

I. Before the Threat, There Was Paperwork

This document contains the earliest known indicators of retaliatory safeguarding — politely formatted, email-threaded, and wrapped in “concern.”

It begins not with violence, but with:

  • Unscheduled contact

  • Health information mining

  • Patronising “support” from uninvited professionals

  • Repeated resistance to written-only contact preferences

This was not a safeguarding investigation.
It was a soft audit of parental defiance, dressed in professional pleasantry.

The council did not assess risk.
It assessed control.

II. The Art of Administrative Creeping

RBKC’s early communications followed a pattern now familiar across SWANK’s Retaliation Archive:

  • Statements of neutrality hiding clear suspicion

  • Passive-aggressive referrals

  • “Just checking in” messages with implicit jurisdiction claims

  • Attempts to render formal complaints into informal “disagreements”

The child’s wellbeing was referenced.
But the mother’s refusal was the real subject.

This is what retaliation looks like before it learns to spell itself out.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because early interference matters.
Because safeguarding language without lawful basis is still surveillance.
Because when you look back, you realise: they were never just asking.

This timeline was filed not for drama — but for legal consequence.
It documents the escalation before the escalation, when everyone still pretended nothing was wrong.

It is a record of polite jurisdictional encroachment.
And it is now part of the SWANK archive.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe “concern” is neutral.
We do not accept unsolicited monitoring of disabled parents.
We do not consider kindness a valid legal defence.

Let the record show:

  • The letters were sent

  • The health needs were ignored

  • The written-only request was trampled

  • And the social workers — were watching

But so were we.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions