“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label harassment during illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harassment during illness. Show all posts

She Was Too Sick to Speak. They Still Didn’t Show.


⟡ “I’m Sick — and She Didn’t Even Show Up.” ⟡
A clinical risk warning, ignored. A meeting, skipped. A person, discarded.

Filed: 11 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-34
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-11_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_ClinicalRisk_NoShowComplaint.pdf
Polly Chromatic informed Westminster and her solicitor, Laura Savage, that she was too unwell to continue being harassed — and that once again, Kirsty Hornal didn’t bother to show up. In a system that demands compliance, even no-shows have consequences. The message was brief. The implication was devastating.

I. What Happened

– Polly was sick.
– Polly was exhausted.
– Polly was clear.

She emailed:

“Social worker didn’t show up today. I’m tired of being bothered while I’m sick.”

Kirsty Hornal was expected.
She wasn’t there.
The cycle of disturbance without accountability continued.
Only now — it’s recorded.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That Polly Chromatic was medically unwell at the time of institutional contact

  • That her symptoms were known and repeatedly exacerbated by unscheduled interaction

  • That Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal failed to attend a scheduled contact

  • That emotional exhaustion and harm were formally communicated

  • That silence, again, replaced safeguarding

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because even no-shows leave bruises.
Because being medically exhausted isn’t an invitation — it’s a limit.
Because she wasn’t asking for anything.
Just for it to stop.
And even that was ignored.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Failure to attend scheduled meeting without notice or clinical accountability

  • Disregard for medical boundaries communicated by a disabled parent

  • Procedural inconsistency resulting in emotional and physical distress

  • Lack of safeguarding follow-up following a missed contact event

  • Institutional minimisation of illness as a barrier to engagement

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly was sick.
Kirsty didn’t come.
And still, the pressure mounted.

No escalation.
No support.
Just quiet abandonment —
while pretending they care.

Now, we file the silence.
And mark it:
Clinical Risk. No Show. Public Record.

⟡ 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:

We Asked to Reschedule. They Treated It Like Consent.


⟡ “We’re Sick, I Can’t Speak, and You’re Still Coming?” ⟡
“It’s not just harassment if I have to reschedule it myself.”

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-06
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailRequest_WCC_RescheduleVisit_DisabilityHealthCrisis.pdf
Email requesting the rescheduling of a child protection visit due to active illness and respiratory disability. Westminster proceeded regardless.

I. What Happened

On 24 September 2024, the parent submitted a written request to Westminster Children’s Services asking for a planned visit to be rescheduled due to:

  • An ongoing viral illness affecting the entire household

  • A well-documented respiratory disability impacting the parent's ability to speak

  • The continued arrival of new, unauthorised individuals in the home without consent

The tone was civil. The legal grounds were clear. The request was made in writing.

It was ignored.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster received a lawful request for written communication and visit rescheduling under medical duress

  • That they had already been made aware of the parent’s verbal disability — and proceeded to demand in-person interaction

  • That strangers continued to be sent into the home despite a formal objection

  • That illness, trauma, and relocation were treated as inconveniences — not as grounds for pause

  • That this was not a missed procedural step. It was enforcement by attrition.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you have to reschedule your own safeguarding visit due to illness, and they show up anyway —
that’s not support. It’s escalation.

Because when you explain that you cannot speak due to a documented medical condition, and they continue showing up unannounced —
that’s not oversight. It’s harassment.

And when you write it all down, politely, and it’s still ignored —
you stop asking for accommodation.
You start filing records.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Failure to implement reasonable adjustments for a known verbal and respiratory disability

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Procedural refusal to reschedule safeguarding visits during a medical crisis

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
    Unlawful interference with private and family life during illness

  • Care Act 2014 (Statutory Guidance)
    Failure to respect a disabled parent’s expressed limits in light of documented vulnerability

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just procedural overreach.
It was targeted persistence.

We didn’t say no.
We said: “We are sick. Please come later.”

You came anyway.

So now we say:
This wasn’t protection. It was refusal to disengage.
And now — it’s evidence.

⟡ 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:

We Asked for Rest. They Sent Reinforcements.


⟡ We’re Sick. You’re Still Coming. And Now It’s a Matter of Record. ⟡
“You think our home is a revolving door. We think this email is admissible.”

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-03
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailObjection_WCC_HarassmentDuringIllness_FamilyPrivacyBreach.pdf
Formal written objection to Westminster social workers entering a sick household, breaching medical boundaries and family privacy despite clear requests.

I. What Happened

On 24 September 2024, a disabled parent wrote to Westminster Children’s Services, objecting to an unrelenting pattern of home visits — despite the family being visibly ill, medically compromised, and mid-relocation.

The email requested:

  • Cancellation of the upcoming visit

  • An end to new workers entering the home

  • Respect for the household’s health, safety, and privacy

It followed repeated boundary violations, including:

  • A former social worker re-entering the home after being explicitly barred

  • Exposure of sick children to strangers during active illness

  • Dismissal of the parent’s respiratory and psychiatric conditions

Despite the clarity of the objection, the visits continued — and the disregard was logged.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster proceeded with intrusive visits during active illness and crisis

  • That previous boundary-setting was ignored, including the rejection of specific staff

  • That privacy and safety concerns regarding unknown individuals were dismissed

  • That verbal disability adjustments were not respected despite explicit reminders

  • That a pattern of procedural harassment was unfolding under the guise of routine “concern”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asking not to be harassed while sick should not be controversial.
Because objecting to new strangers entering the home should not be ignored.
Because a request to “please don’t come tomorrow, we’re ill” should never be met with continued surveillance.

This isn’t social work.
It’s soft-intrusion under state authority — the appearance of concern masking the persistence of control.

You bring cameras to court.
We bring email headers.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Failure to acknowledge respiratory disability and respect written-only communication

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Inappropriate use of statutory powers during health vulnerability

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
    Breach of private and family life, despite direct withdrawal of consent

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR
    Continued presence of unauthorised individuals in the private home of a disabled person and minor children

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a visit.
It was intrusion.

This was not “business as usual.”
It was documented resistance to consent.

We were sick. We said no.
And Westminster said, “We’re coming anyway.”

Now we say:
You were warned. Now you’re recorded.

⟡ 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: