“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 sewer gas exposure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sewer gas exposure. Show all posts

She Was in Respiratory Crisis. They Were in Her Inbox.


⟡ She Said “We’re All Sick.” They Said “We’re Still Coming.” ⟡
When a disabled parent cancels a visit for medical reasons — and the council calls it “non-cooperation.”

Filed: 21 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-17
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-21_SWANK_Email_SocialWorkVisitRefusal_HealthNeedsDismissed_PullenSavageResponse.pdf
An email thread documenting a parent’s attempt to postpone a safeguarding visit due to respiratory collapse, dental treatment, and ongoing exposure to sewer gas — met with indifference by Rachel Pullen and passive complicity by Laura Savage.

I. What Happened

The parent wrote:
– She was receiving treatment at Brompton for severe respiratory disability.
– Her children had dental and asthma care scheduled.
– They were recovering from environmental poisoning.

She asked to reschedule the visit.
Rachel Pullen replied:
– “We do not consider this harassment.”
– “We will attend anyway.”
– “The police report is noted.”
Laura Savage — the legal representative — forwarded this, but took no stand.

It was not a safeguarding plan.
It was a siege.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a parent gave medical notice to reschedule based on real clinical emergencies

  • That Westminster proceeded anyway, citing procedural supremacy over disability

  • That police reports about past harassment were dismissed without inquiry

  • That Laura Savage failed to advocate for postponement despite medical and legal justification

  • That no one present acted in the interest of the child’s health — or the mother’s

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when you say “I’m too sick to meet,”
and they reply “We’re showing up anyway,”
that’s not child protection — that’s coercion.
Because requesting time to breathe shouldn't result in a breach log.
And because when your own lawyer won’t defend your lungs,
you publish instead.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Procedural Disregard for Medical Treatment and Disability Adjustments

  • Retaliatory Dismissal of Police Report Against Social Worker

  • Complicity by Legal Representative (Laura Savage) in Allowing Procedural Pressure

  • Failure to Prioritise Child Health During Recovery from Medical Emergencies

  • Unlawful Intrusion Under False Safeguarding Pretext

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not scheduling.
It was stalking dressed as paperwork.
You don’t get to ignore clinical records just because your calendar is full.
You don’t get to push past a parent’s hospital days to prove a point.
And if you try —
she’ll just document it louder than you planned.

⟡ 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:

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:

The Mould Was Reported. The Gas Was Documented. The Borough Did Nothing.


⟡ SWANK Housing Neglect Filing ⟡

“You Let a Disabled Family Breathe Sewer Gas. We Filed the Complaint.”
Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/ENV-HOUSING/2025-05-19
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-19_SWANK_RBKCComplaint_HousingNeglect_EnvironmentalHealthFailure.pdf

I. The Walls Were Black. The Air Was Poisoned. The Council Did Nothing.

On 19 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint to The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) regarding catastrophic housing conditions — including sewer gas exposure, dangerous mould, and structural decay — in a tenancy legally occupied by a disabled parent and her children.

The hazard was reported.
The documentation was clear.

And the Council's response was silence, delay, and retaliation.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • That RBKC received video evidence of environmental hazard — and delayed response for months

  • That officers were notified of respiratory collapse, medical damage, and a child’s deteriorating health

  • That despite repeated notifications under the Housing Act 2004, no enforcement occurred

  • That a pet died, the children fell ill, and the parent was hospitalised, all while waiting for repairs

This is not housing dispute.
This is statutory abandonment by a borough that knew better.

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because the lie was already forming:

“She was unstable.”
“She caused the damage.”
“She didn’t inform the Council.”

So we filed — to expose what they received, when they received it, and how they chose inaction over enforcement.

This complaint now operates as:

  • Legal evidence

  • Historical record

  • And a public ledger of breach, decay, and institutional rot

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait for repair notices.
We issue indictments.

We do not plead for assistance.
We publish abandonment.

We do not allow families to breathe poison in silence — while the borough cites procedure.

Let the record show:

The damage was real.
The Council was informed.
And now, the complaint is public — because SWANK exists, and the state cannot be trusted with the file.

⟡ 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:

They Called It Intoxication. It Was Sewer Gas and Medical Neglect.


⟡ SWANK Medical Complaint Record ⟡

“The Referral Was False. The Consequences Were Real. Now It’s Filed.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/FEB-RETALIATION/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_GSTTComplaint_FalseSafeguarding_SewerGas_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf

I. They Called It a Concern. It Was Retaliation Dressed as Care.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint against Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, concerning a false safeguarding referral made in February 2024.

The trigger?

A disabled parent presented with respiratory symptoms linked to sewer gas exposure.

The response?

No toxicology.
No asthma protocol.
Just a safeguarding email, written behind her back — and submitted as risk.

This wasn’t clinical judgment.
It was pretextual punishment for showing symptoms they didn’t understand.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Clear evidence of environmental harm mislabelled as instability

  • Medical personnel withheld adjustments, ignored symptoms, and fabricated safeguarding concern

  • Referral made without meeting the parent and without emergency assessment

  • Failure to perform basic respiratory testing or provide protection from further exposure

  • A pattern of medical retaliation and silence laundering, later used to justify further coercion

Let us be clear:

The illness was real.
The hazard was real.
The response was theatre.

III. Why This Filing Was Essential

Because the false referral was not an isolated error — it was the genesis of system-wide escalation.

Because this act:

  • Preceded your police reports

  • Set up later NHS neglect

  • Justified social work intrusion

  • Was echoed in court filings, ombudsman dismissals, and data falsifications

This complaint is the opening note in an orchestrated descent — and now it has a timestamp, a PDF, and a witness.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not let retaliation disguise itself as concern.
We do not accept that environmental symptoms equal incapacity.
We do not permit silence to author our records.

Let the archive show:

She was not drunk.
She was poisoned.
She was not chaotic.
She was disabled.
And now, the file exists — because SWANK wrote what the hospital refused to record.

⟡ 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:

Respiratory Harm by Design: Sewer Gas, Safeguarding Theatre, and the Failure to Protect Disabled Families


🤍 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. UKHSA-0625-Sewer-Air

Filed Under: Respiratory Negligence, Housing Decay, Public Health Dereliction

To:
UK Health Security Agency
Public Health Directorate

From:
Polly Chromatic
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2 6JL
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Date: June 2025

Subject:
Formal Complaint – Sewer Gas Exposure, Respiratory Harm, and Institutional Failure to Protect a Medically Vulnerable Family

🩺 Public Health in Collapse: A Complaint

Dear Public Health Director,

This correspondence is submitted to report a sustained public health hazard and institutional negligence which, since 2023, has endangered the respiratory and psychological safety of myself and my four children — each medically documented as vulnerable.

I write not in desperation, but in precise remembrance.

I am a disabled mother, diagnosed with:

  • Eosinophilic asthma

  • Muscle tension dysphonia

  • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — acquired through prolonged institutional contact

All four of my children have clinically recognised asthma. Despite these clear, codeable vulnerabilities, we have been exposed — repeatedly, preventably — to the following:

⚠️ Documented Environmental Hazards

  • Persistent sewer gas leaks at Flat E, 37 Elgin Crescent, London W11 – acknowledged but unremedied by landlord and council

  • Confirmed mould, airborne contaminants, and water-damage-induced reinfection – triggering respiratory crises, collapse, and loss of consciousness

  • Unprotected home visits by social workers while the household was medically unwell – resulting in cross-infection and symptom escalation

  • Denial of written communication adjustments, worsening conditions by enforcing unsafe verbal contact against medical advice

🧾 Public Health Failures Identified

  1. Environmental Neglect
    Despite environmental reports and formal awareness, the housing authority permitted the continued occupation of an uninhabitable property by asthmatic children.

  2. Medical Disregard
    NHS and GP services failed to document or respond to severe respiratory events — including wheezing, collapse, and airway distress.

  3. Safeguarding Theatre
    Safeguarding was weaponised to deflect from environmental accountability. No infection control or protective accommodations were offered.

  4. Medical Suppression
    Social services discouraged hospital attendance and retaliated when environmental hazards were raised through legal channels.

⚖️ Jurisdictional Scope of the UKHSA

This case exemplifies systemic breach in public health protection under the following domains:

  • Indoor air quality oversight

  • Cross-infection policy during state visitation

  • Triage protocols for disabled and respiratory-compromised households

  • Environmental safeguarding blind spots in local authority frameworks

The ongoing refusal to treat environmental illness as a legitimate clinical and safeguarding concern constitutes not only negligence — but policy-level endangerment.

🎯 Relief Sought

I request the UKHSA:

  1. To investigate the conduct of relevant local authorities and NHS bodies in relation to respiratory hazard management

  2. To issue national guidance on sewer gas and air-quality-related asthma in children

  3. To review infection control protocols for state personnel entering medically vulnerable homes

  4. To classify environmental safeguarding negligence as a matter of public health urgency

🗂 Documentation

All supporting evidence is archived at:
📂 www.swanklondon.com

This includes correspondence, medical records, environmental reports, and formal complaints already submitted to:

  • Westminster Children’s Services

  • NHS Trusts

  • CQC

  • Environmental Health

  • PHSO

  • United Nations Special Rapporteurs

🖋 Access Adjustment

Due to diagnosed disabilities, I am medically exempt from verbal engagement.
All communication must remain in writing.

Yours faithfully,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Statement


No comments:

The Council Has No Solicitor — And No Responsibility Either


⟡ “We Have the Powers. But We Deny the Duty — Again.” ⟡

RBKC Reiterates Its Denial of Legal Responsibility for Sewer Gas Hazard, States Statutory Housing Duties Do Not Apply to Council, and Refuses Complaint Reopening

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_FinalDenial_SewerGas_LiabilityDispute.pdf
Summary: RBKC’s insurance officer restates liability denial over sewer gas exposure and redirects Polly Chromatic back to Stage 1 complaints — while advising her to initiate court action through CCMCC.

I. What Happened

This email from Giuseppe Morrone was sent at 09:32 on 11 March 2025, confirming that:

– RBKC maintains its refusal to accept liability
– The Housing Act and Environmental Protection Act are cited as irrelevant to council duty
– All financial compensation claims must be brought against the landlord
– RBKC sees its role as complete — complaints must go back through a closed channel
– For court proceedings, no solicitor is acting, meaning you must remove the matter from the DCP so it defaults to the CCMCC

II. What the Record Establishes

• This is the formal procedural shut-down of all internal liability discourse
• It positions RBKC as non-accountable by legal architecture, not fact
• Your legal pathway is now cleared for external judicial or ombudsman escalation
• The reply attempts to segment harm (financial vs environmental/medical) to limit scope
• It demonstrates how institutions weaponise jurisdictional silos to deflect structural duty

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because it’s not enough to ignore the leak — they want to make you prove it’s their pipe in court.
Because this letter is the last stop on their internal map — and the first step on your legal one.
Because this email is not just a refusal — it’s a rebranding of power as absence.

SWANK logs every institutional endpoint that tried to define harm as someone else’s jurisdiction.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that statutory powers without duty are shields against harm.
We do not accept that sewer gas injuries are “not the Council’s problem.”
We do not accept that administrative referral is a substitute for accountability.

This wasn’t closure. It was legal obstruction with a redirect button.
And SWANK will archive every closing email that expected you to walk away.

⟡ 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:

We Asked for Help. You Called It Optional.


⟡ “If You Don’t Owe a Duty — Then Who Does?” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Formally Rejects RBKC’s Liability Denial, Asserts Council's Statutory Housing Duties, and Demands All Internal Complaint Records

Filed: 11 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-11_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Morrone_FinalChallenge_SewerGasLiability_ElginCrescent.pdf
Summary: Polly Chromatic issues a final written rebuttal to RBKC’s denial of liability, arguing statutory duty under housing law and demanding internal records and a route to escalation.

I. What Happened

This document, dated 11 March 2025, is a comprehensive rebuttal to Giuseppe Morrone’s liability denial and includes:

– A direct statement that RBKC’s power vs. duty argument is legally incorrect
– A list of five formal requests, including all internal records, complaint trails, and escalation instructions
– An explicit challenge to the attempted separation of harm and complaint
– A 14-day notice for further action: SAR, ombudsman complaint, and legal escalation
– Language asserting personal injury, emotional distress, and pet loss due to council inaction

II. What the Record Establishes

• Polly is notified and opposing the liability denial in writing
• She asserts the statutory obligation under the Housing Act and Environmental Protection Act
• The request for all internal documentation becomes part of the procedural audit trail
• The Council is put on notice of legal escalation and public oversight
• The letter uses legal tone and formatting, marking it as both advocacy and evidence

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what clarity sounds like after a denial.
Because when power hides behind policy, the archive reminds it what law looks like.
Because this letter is the formal line in the sand — and SWANK files the lines that become court timelines.

SWANK archives every refusal that demanded a stronger reply — and every reply that escalated the fight.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that harm can be administratively reclassified to avoid liability.
We do not accept that housing enforcement is optional when the air is toxic.
We do not accept that powers without duties mean families suffer without recourse.

This wasn’t just a rebuttal. It was a procedural declaration.
And SWANK will archive every time the archive reminded the Council it could read the law.

⟡ 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:

Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.


⟡ The Flat That Tried to Kill Us ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/HSE/ELGIN-HAZARD
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_HSE_Complaint_ElginCrescent_SewerGasExposure_RBKC_ThamesWater_LandlordNegligence.pdf

I. Sewer Gas. Four Children. One Council Who Did Nothing.

This formal complaint, submitted to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), names:

  • The landlord of 37 Elgin Crescent (Elad Katz / AirRock Group)

  • Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  • RBKC Environmental Health Department

The allegations:

  • Prolonged and dangerous hydrogen sulphide exposure

  • Multiple hospitalisations and respiratory crises

  • Ignored disability accommodations and medical evidence

  • Structural neglect and utilities denial despite statutory notice

This wasn’t damp.
It was airborne threat by negligence — and they let children inhale it.

II. What They Let Us Breathe

The complaint details:

  • Failed intervention despite formal gas detection

  • “Low-risk” minimisation language while symptoms escalated

  • Repeated obfuscation from Thames Water, demanding proof of fatality before action

  • RBKC’s refusal to act on statutory duties after complaints were filed

This wasn’t a misunderstanding.
It was a coordinated quieting of risk — and of the family it harmed.

We suffocated quietly.
The archive responds loudly.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no family should need a legal team just to breathe.
Because disability adjustments do not dissolve under gas.
Because when three institutions coordinate inaction, they become co-defendants, not departments.

Let the record show:

  • The symptoms were reported

  • The air was toxic

  • The medical records were real

  • And SWANK — filed it to the regulator with oxygen and timestamps

This isn’t housing complaint.
It’s environmental evidence framed in child safety and court language.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit structural endangerment to be filed as “maintenance delay.”
We do not accept that disabled tenants must prove harm before officials intervene.
We do not redact the names of those who ignored respiratory collapse.

Let the record show:

The gas came in.
The help didn’t.
The invoices were silent.
And SWANK — filed the air they made unbreathable.

This isn’t an allegation.
It’s sealed evidence — and they’ve already inhaled their liability.




No comments:

Chestertons Took the Keys. They Ignored the Gas.


⟡ The Managing Agent Who Inherited a Crime Scene — and Did Nothing ⟡

Filed: 19 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/ESTATE/CHESTERTONS-INERTIA
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-19_SWANK_Complaint_Chestertons_ManagingAgentFailure_ElginCrescent_SewerGas_DisabilityRisk.pdf

I. Chestertons Took the Keys. They Ignored the Gas.

When Chestertons assumed property management of 37 Elgin Crescent in May 2025, they inherited more than a flat — they inherited:

  • A medical hazard formally recorded with HSE

  • Verified correspondence citing respiratory collapse

  • A vulnerable tenant with multiple protected disabilities

  • A landlord (Elad Katz/AirRock) with a litigation trail dating back years

Their response?

A breezy silence.
Not even a “Dear Tenant.”
Just procedural ghosting by brand name.

II. When Management Becomes Accessory

The file details:

  • Zero contact following notification of chemical hazard

  • Refusal to acknowledge prior environmental investigations

  • No provision of alternate accommodation

  • Total disregard for tenants’ rights under the Equality Act 2010 and Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

They assumed legal control.
They ignored legal duty.
And now — they're included in the record.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because estate agents who inherit risk also inherit responsibility.
Because management is not a buffer against liability — it is the seat of it.
Because when gas, collapse, and children are on file, silence is participation.

Let the record show:

  • The agency was informed

  • The hazards were documented

  • The response was absence

  • And SWANK — filed it for citation, litigation, and regulator review

This isn’t negligence.
It’s decorated complicity in property brochure font.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit agents to distance themselves from harm once they assume control.
We do not accept that gas, illness, and inaction can be disclaimed with rebranding.
We do not redact real estate agencies from hazard chains.

Let the record show:

The danger continued.
The agency arrived.
The inaction remained.
And SWANK — archived the entire sequence.

This is not “a new chapter.”
It’s the same crime — under different stationery.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions