“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 self-awareness evasion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-awareness evasion. Show all posts

You’re Holding a Mapping Meeting but Refusing to Be Mapped

 🖋️ ⟡ SWANK Recording Rights Dispatch ⟡

28 February 2024


Recording Isn’t the Problem—Your Behaviour Is


Labels: recording refusal, ICPC manipulation, SWANK communication protocol, self-awareness evasion, RBKC accountability panic, safeguarding pantomime


I. A Mapping Meeting with No Map—and No Witness

On 28 February 2024, Samira Issa emails Polly Chromatic confirming:

  • The Initial Child Protection Conference on 4 March

  • A “mapping meeting” on 1 March at 11am

  • That she “does not agree to be recorded” and will terminate the meeting if recording is suspected

  • She claims recordings are unproductive, but insists her own summary of the meeting—not the conversation itself—will be shared.

That is not safeguarding.
That is narrative control.


II. Polly’s Response: A Masterpiece in Professional Elegance

At 21:27, Polly replies to Samira, Glen Peache, Sarah Newman, Eric Wedge-Bull, and Rhiannon Hodgson:

“Recording is a great tool for improving the productiveness of communication.”
“My children and I use recordings as a tool to pinpoint areas of improvement in our own behaviour and communication.”
“Humans who strive to be their best see the value in recording discussions for the purpose of improving productivity and don’t see it as a barrier.”

This is not just a refusal.
It is a pedagogical declaration—a communication philosophy that exposes the institutional aversion to self-reflection.


III. What They Said, and What They Feared

Samira writes:

“We appreciate this may be frustrating, but we do not believe that recording contributes to productive conversations.”

But the truth is:
They don’t want to be held to what they actually said.
They want the power to rewrite meetings in their own tone—without your version, your memory, or your defence.


Filed under: recording rights, verbal rewriting, safeguarding theatre, mapping coercion, communication distortion, SWANK rebuttal doctrine

© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
If they won’t let you record it, it’s because they don’t want it on the record.


✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com


Search Description:
Polly Chromatic exposes institutional refusal to allow recordings, revealing efforts to control narratives and evade accountability.


Documented Obsessions