⟡ SWANK Child Protection Archive – Westminster City Council ⟡
“The Meeting Was Scheduled. The Parent Was Present. The Council Forgot to Let Her In.”
Filed: 5 June 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CPP-CONFERENCE-MISMANAGEMENT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-06-05_SWANK_WCC_CPPConference_EmailChain_AttendanceFailure_LauraSavage_Response.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic
I. This Wasn’t Non-Attendance. It Was Misadministration in Action.
This document captures the email exchange surrounding the 5 June 2024 Child Protection Conference, organised by Westminster Children’s Services, in which the parent — medically exempt, legally informed, and technologically present — was effectively excluded from her own meeting.
The file includes:
A written inquiry from the parent: calm, punctual, and precise
A response from solicitor Laura Savage (Merali Beedle LLP), confirming the parent’s absence — despite the parent being online and waiting
Zero evidence of organisational effort to ensure access for a disabled parent known to require written-only communication
This wasn’t a failure to attend.
It was a failure to administrate a statutory process within the bounds of law, technology, and human dignity.
II. What the Document Reveals
That a multi-agency safeguarding meeting proceeded without the primary witness present
That the parent had issued no refusal — only a polite confirmation of digital attendance
That the attending professionals included:
Edward Kendall
Gabby Bernard
Philip Reid
Joyeeta Mukherjee
Ben Barker
CAIT (Metropolitan Police)
And yet no one stopped the meeting.
No one checked access.
No one rescheduled.
Let the record show:
It was not silence.
It was institutional muting.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because absence from a government meeting should not be decided by clerical error.
Because failing to facilitate lawful participation for a disabled parent is not a blunder — it’s a statutory breach.
Because when a parent says “I’m here” and the reply is “You’re not,” we archive it — with every name included.
We filed this because:
No medical adjustment was honoured
No procedural care was taken
No concern was given to fair participation
And every professional present continued — as if that was normal
Let the record show:
The meeting occurred.
The parent was present.
The access was blocked.
And SWANK — logged the error with precision and disdain.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept exclusion masked as miscommunication.
We do not accept safeguarding meetings proceeding without safeguarding access.
We do not accept procedural failure being rebranded as “attendance confusion.”
Let the record show:
The email was sent.
The solicitor responded.
The record was archived.
And SWANK — has preserved the moment a council forgot who the meeting was for.
This wasn’t absence.
It was bureaucratic erasure by Zoom link failure — and no one cared to check.
⟡ 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.