“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 institutional disregard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label institutional disregard. Show all posts

She Missed the Visit — But Not the Power Play.


⟡ She Didn’t Show Up. Then She Shrugged It Off. ⟡
When the safeguarding visit fails to happen — but the blame lands on the family anyway.

Filed: 9 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_MissedVisit_ExcuseAndDismissal.pdf
An email exchange documenting that social worker Kirsty Hornal failed to attend a scheduled appointment, only to respond with flippant dismissal — despite prior notice, medical coordination, and legal vulnerability.

I. What Happened

The parent prepared for the visit.
Legal notices had been sent. Documentation was ready.
No one arrived.
Hours later, Kirsty Hornal replied — not with apology, not with explanation, but with bureaucratic banality.
No concern for the disruption. No regard for the trauma.
Just the institutional version of “oops.”

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a scheduled safeguarding visit was missed without notice

  • That the parent made all reasonable preparations under duress

  • That Kirsty Hornal replied as if no disruption occurred

  • That there was no acknowledgment of disability, impact, or professional obligation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when they ignore appointments, they’re “busy.”
But when you do, you’re “non-compliant.”
Because procedural negligence is not harmless — it’s destabilising.
And because missed visits become future allegations — unless you publish the record.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Professional Negligence in Safeguarding Scheduling

  • Failure to Provide Reasonable Notice of Non-Attendance

  • Emotional Harm via Institutional Disruption

  • Dismissal of Communication Needs and Medical Context

  • Use of Silence as Shield for Administrative Failure

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to miss the appointment and still hold the power.
You don’t get to forget your calendar and then critique the parent’s conduct.
This wasn’t a no-show.
It was a warning — of how care becomes control when it’s only enforced one way.

⟡ 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:

Disability Adjustment, Reasserted and Ignored


⟡ Written Only, As Stated ⟡

The Email That Reasserted a Disability Adjustment They Later Chose to Breach

📎 Document: [2025-04-18_SWANK_Hamilton_Email_ApptReschedule_DisabilityNote.pdf]
Email to Mr. Hamilton’s clinic confirming non-availability by phone due to a medical condition — and requesting rescheduling in writing only.

Filed: 18 April 2025
Ref: SWANK/COMM/HAMILTON-ADJUST-01
Sender: Polly Chromatic
Recipient: Mr. Hamilton’s Office
Subject: Appointment Rescheduling + Reassertion of Disability Accommodation

I. The Adjustment Was Already in Place

In this email, sent weeks before the appointment, I clearly stated:

“I have a medical condition that prevents me from making phone calls, so I would be grateful if we could arrange the appointment via email instead.”

No ambiguity. No hedging.
Just a lawful, courteous assertion of an existing disability adjustment — one grounded in both medical fact and basic dignity.

II. What the Email Reveals (That They Later Ignored)

This document is significant because it proves:

  • I gave clear, advanced notice

  • I requested a reasonable and legally protected communication format

  • I did so in a civil, concise, and cooperative manner

  • I was juggling disability and caregiving (my son’s birthday) — not cancelling, but adjusting

Despite this, medical professionals — including those affiliated with ENT or safeguarding services — would later:

  • Call anyway

  • Use phone non-response as a pretext for noncompliance

  • Misrepresent written-only preference as evasiveness

III. Filed Under: The Paper Trail of Courtesy

This email now lives in the SWANK Archive as:

  • A legal artefact of disability compliance

  • A counterweight to accusations of unreachability

  • A timestamped denial-proof record of polite refusal and written insistence

  • The sort of communication no tribunal can overlook and no regulator can excuse ignoring

It was written. It was sent. It was ignored.
Now it is archived.

⟡ 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