Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): safeguarding repetition

Showing posts with label safeguarding repetition. Show all posts

A Referral Was Made. It Was Addressed. So They Made It Again.

⟡ SWANK Archive: The Referral That Looped into Madness ⟡

8–18 February 2024

The Pattern Is the System, Not the Mother.

I. Opening Salvo: A Referral Based on Nothing New

Chelsea & Westminster Hospital made a redundant referral concerning the 2 January 2024 incident at St Thomas’ Hospital—an event already disclosed and documented.

On 8 February 2024, RBKC social worker Samira Issa emailed Polly Chromatic requesting a phone call.

“I was hoping we could discuss this over the phone.”

Polly’s response was swift, documented, and legally grounded:

“Please refrain from contacting me again... I cannot communicate via phone... I am disgusted with your continued harassment.”

She confirmed:

Legal representation had been retained
A formal harassment complaint had already been filed

II. The Cycle Repeats—While They Claim It Doesn’t

9 February 2024
Samira responds:

“I have read [your previous emails] all.”
“Would you be able to meet with me in person?”

She claims the referral concerns a “separate incident”, yet provides no new information.

The tactics remain unchanged:

Verbal coercion disguised as support
Asthma-based communication boundaries ignored
Pretending written refusals are unclear

Polly replies again:

“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”
“Call a lawyer.”

III. The Surveillance Visit, and the Escalation by Samira

By 13 February, Samira admits to an unauthorised visit:

“We visited your last known address to see if you and the children were residing there.”

A refusal to speak becomes grounds for home surveillance.
No legal threshold. No due cause. No warning.

Then she asks:

“Can you confirm where you are currently living?”

Despite already knowing.
Despite having just been there.
Despite violating trust and triggering retraumatisation.

IV. The Legal Yet Exhausting Closure

18 February 2024
Polly responds:

“We will be available at 4pm Wednesday 21st February.”

This is not consent.
It is closure by exhaustion.
The location was provided. The file was closed—again.

This was never a safeguarding concern.
This was a reputation-maintenance ritual.

© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
When a system can’t hear “no” in writing, it’s not protecting—it’s performing.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

You Already Said You Read It—So Why Are You Still Writing?

⟡ SWANK Exhaustion Dispatch, Iteration Final ⟡

9 February 2024

Nothing Has Happened. Except More Emails from You.

I. The Redundant Loop Closes In On Itself

Another contact from Samira Issa, this time shifting from ignored phone call requests to an in-person meeting—still refusing to acknowledge the already defined boundary.

Her justification?

“A verbal conversation will be beneficial…”

Polly Chromatic’s reply is surgical:

“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time. Thank you.”

II. The Performance of Acknowledgement Without Action

Samira writes:

“I have read them all… I have made sure to read the previous file…”

Yet she continues to:

Ignore the solicitor notice
Ignore the asthma-related phone barrier
Ignore the repetition clause
Ignore the explicit refusal of contact

This is not safeguarding.
This is bureaucratic defiance masquerading as care.

III. Boundary Maintenance as Emotional Labour

Polly should not have to say:

No to phone calls
No to meetings
No to referral repetition
No to unpaid emotional labour

But she does. Repeatedly. Calmly. Legally.

“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”

That is more than enough.

© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
She has said no more ways than the law requires. If they contact her again, it’s not social work—it’s stalking.