“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 procedural refusal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label procedural refusal. Show all posts

They Called It Inaccessibility. It Was a Legal Adjustment.


⟡ SWANK Procedural Notice ⟡

“You Were Warned. The Auto-Reply Is the Record.”
Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/EQADJ/RBKC-WEST/2025-05-31
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_AutoReply_DisabilityCommunication_AdjustmentNotice_RBKC_Westminster.pdf

I. The Boundary Was Issued. In Writing. Automatically.

This is not a message.
It is a statutory adjustment, delivered without fanfare and backed by law.

On 31 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a formal disability communication adjustment notice via auto-reply to:

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC)

  • Westminster City Council

The content is simple:

Contact must be in writing only.
You were informed.
You are now accountable.

II. What This Document Proves

This auto-reply:

  • Notifies the state of a medically supported, legally protected adjustment

  • Invokes the Equality Act 2010 as procedural jurisdiction

  • Provides a timestamped notice that renders all future calls, visits, or verbal contact in breach

It is not emotional.
It is not open to negotiation.
It is an administrative boundary with evidentiary teeth.

They don’t need to like it.
They only need to comply.

III. Why It Was Deployed

Because:

  • Disabled persons should not be required to repeat their conditions to untrained personnel

  • “Phone calls” are not accessible if you have muscle dysphonia or PTSD

  • Home visits to a medically unfit parent are not neutral — they are institutional aggression

This auto-reply does not beg for consideration.
It declares legal territory.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not ask for accommodations.
We announce the boundary — and then observe who dares to breach it.

This reply is now part of the archive.
It is soft-spoken but absolute.
It is passive only in tone, never in consequence.

Let the record show:

They were notified on 31 May.
The contact rules were clear.
Every violation after this date becomes its own offence.

⟡ 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:

The Clock Hasn’t Started Because You Haven’t Jumped Through Our Hoops Yet


⟡ “We Can't Process Your Data Request Until You Prove You Exist — Again.” ⟡
Metropolitan Police Refuses to Process Subject Access Request Until Additional ID and Address Documentation Are Resubmitted

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/ROA-REJECT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_Letter_MPS_ROARequest_Rejected_ProcedureDelay.pdf
Summary: MPS formally rejects processing of a Right of Access request, citing insufficient ID/address verification. The 30-day response timeline will not begin until further documents are received.

I. What Happened

On 17 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Simlett) submitted a Right of Access request to the MPS under the Data Protection Act 2018.

On 23 May 2025, the MPS issued this formal response stating:

– They cannot proceed without additional proof of address (dated within the last 6 months)
– They require further proof of identity
– For third-party data (children, other adults), formal authority documents must be supplied
– The 30-day processing clock will not start until documentation is resubmitted

They include a link to the third-party consent template and advise against sending original documents.

II. What the Letter Establishes

• The MPS received the request but will not process it until new supporting documentation is sent
• They are invoking procedural delays to defer their data disclosure obligations
• This creates a bureaucratic loop that disproportionately burdens disabled or chronically surveilled individuals
• It demonstrates how the 30-day legal deadline is effectively paused by agency discretion
• The rejection email becomes a tactical time reset that obscures state data retention and use

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how denial hides in delay.
Because rejecting a legal access request on formality does not erase the request — it reveals resistance.
Because when the law says “you must respond in 30 days,” and the state replies “only if we say the request is valid,” that’s a power play — not a protection.

SWANK documents when access is denied not in law, but in logistics.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that legal rights to data are conditional on resubmitting what was already provided.
We do not accept that timelines can be paused at the institution’s convenience.
We do not accept that access to truth should be procedurally fragile.

This wasn’t a refusal. It was a stall.
And SWANK will archive every attempt to timeout your request into invisibility.

⟡ 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