Featured post

⟡ CHILDREN STILL HELD ⟡

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — four U.S. citizens — were unlawfully seized by Westminster on 23 June 2025. No contact. No updates. ...

“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

Documented Obsessions

Showing posts with label email discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label email discrimination. 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
📎 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: