“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 safeguarding risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safeguarding risk. Show all posts

I Called About the Fumes. He Promised to Call Back. He Never Did.


⟡ SWANK Environmental Harm Archive ⟡

“This Is the Email That Let the Gas Keep Leaking.”
Filed: 2 November 2023
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FUMES/KUNDI-CHAIN-2023
📎 Download PDF – 2023-11-02_SWANK_RBKC_HardeepKundi_ToxicFumes_EmailChain_ElginEnvironmentalNeglect.pdf

I. A Gas Leak Was Reported. A Call Was Promised. No One Came.

On 2 November 2023, Hardeep Kundi of RBKC Private Sector Housing replied to an email documenting toxic environmental conditions at a rented property on Elgin Crescent — specifically, persistent sewer gas exposure.

The reply was short. Polite.

“I’ll speak to the landlord.”

He did not.
The fumes continued.
The tenant — a disabled parent with four children — collapsed days later.

II. What the Email Chain Reveals

  • That Category 1 housing hazard was clearly reported

  • That the officer acknowledged receipt and appeared responsive

  • That no follow-up inspection, enforcement, or even written advice followed

  • That RBKC had early, internal knowledge of a medically dangerous housing defect and took no meaningful action

This isn’t neglect of process.
This is neglect as process.

III. Why SWANK Archived It

Because public authorities routinely say:

“We were not made aware.”

This file says otherwise.

We archived this because:

  • It establishes the first institutional timestamp of environmental harm

  • It exposes the performative layer of responsiveness

  • It documents the false hope cycle: concern expressed, follow-up evaded, danger sustained

Let the record show:

The officer was informed.
The air was poisoned.
The promise was procedural.
And the result was harm.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept kindness in tone as substitute for compliance in action.
We do not confuse acknowledgment with remedy.
We do not permit housing officers to nod politely while a child breathes methane.

Let the record show:

This email chain is polite.
It is professional.
It is absolutely damning.

This is not communication.
This is the first institutional silence — dressed in nine civil words.

⟡ 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:

You Can’t Afford Safety — And You Disclosed Too Late.


⟡ “We Sent the Defendant List. They Sent an Invoice Threat.” ⟡

Laura Savage Blocks Legal Support for Polly Chromatic Until Fees Are Paid — Despite Known Disability and Urgent Litigation Schedule

Filed: 3 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/LEGAL/ACCESS-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-03_SWANK_Email_LauraSavage_FeeBlock_LegalAccessDispute_AdjustmentNotice.pdf
Summary: Laura Savage of Merali Beedle refuses to review evidence for Polly Chromatic’s case due to unpaid invoice, despite documented disability and time-sensitive claims.

I. What Happened

On 3 March 2025, Polly Chromatic (under her legal name) emailed:

  • A full Defendant List to Laura Savage (Merali Beedle) and Simon O’Meara (Blackfords)

  • With an email signature disclosing:

    “I suffer from eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia. I need to budget my time talking accordingly.”

Laura Savage responded the same day, stating:

  • She refused to review emails or evidence while a £900 invoice (with interest) remained unpaid

  • She had previously waived fees, but would now add interest daily

  • She would not proceed unless funds were received by that week

No safeguarding, equality, or disability provisions were referenced in her refusal.

II. What the Record Establishes

• Polly Chromatic’s ability to access legal review was blocked due to finances
• Laura Savage ignored or failed to accommodate a clearly stated medical disability
• The email shows dual representation (Merali Beedle + Blackfords) under strain
• Highlights the tension between private legal structures and disability-related access
• The defendant list was acknowledged, but not reviewed — impairing litigation progress

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when medical disability intersects with poverty, legal access becomes conditional.
Because email silence isn't neutrality when the invoice is louder than the evidence.
Because this email shows exactly how people are priced out of protection.

SWANK archives the emails where protection was withheld by policy — or pricing.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that medical disclosures can be acknowledged, then ignored.
We do not accept that legal review is a luxury for the able-bodied.
We do not accept that invoice pressure is an excuse to halt representation during active risk.

This wasn’t law. It was gatekeeping.
And SWANK logs it as part of the institutional harm chain.

⟡ 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