“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 erratic label rebuttal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label erratic label rebuttal. Show all posts

When They Say “Erratic,” They Mean “She Wrote It Down”: How Documented Disability Became a Trigger for Retaliation


⟡ “I’m Going to Sue Them. It’s Child Neglect.” ⟡
*A Verbal Disability Reassertion, a Safeguarding Rebuttal, and a Legal Intent Statement in One Email They Still Probably Didn’t Read

Filed: 24 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_HospitalBullying_SafeguardingRebuttal_ChildNeglectNotice.pdf
Email rejecting accusations of erratic behaviour, confirming verbal disability, and naming hospitals for repeated medical refusal and bullying. Ends with a statement of legal intent.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic responded to institutional gaslighting with an email that did exactly what hospitals, social workers, and mental health professionals refuse to do: it told the truth plainly.

  • She refuted the term “erratic” used to justify safeguarding

  • She clarified that she doesn’t argue — she documents

  • She named St Mary’s and St Thomas’ for bullying behaviour that worsened her asthma

  • She confirmed her children were treated even more dismissively than she was

  • She closed with:

“I’m going to sue them. It’s child neglect.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The use of “erratic” as a retaliatory label for written medical requests

  • A pattern of bullying and disbelief at A&E

  • Exclusion of asthmatic children from care

  • Verbal disability as a structural barrier — not a behavioural trait

  • A calm legal threat: documentation over confrontation

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what a safeguarding reversal looks like.

This email is a declaration of war — not in tone, but in recordkeeping. It doesn’t ask for explanation. It declares the gap: no one can name the “erratic” behaviour because there wasn’t any.

SWANK logs this because disabled people are framed as unstable when they ask to be treated.
And when they refuse to argue, they are punished with silence.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t erratic.
It was strategy.

We do not accept that saying “I want to be treated” is disruptive.
We do not accept that bullying must be endured silently to maintain credibility.
We will document every moment the system accused someone of being dangerous — because she used a keyboard instead of a scream.

⟡ 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