“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 snobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label snobby. Show all posts

No Harm Found. Still Under Surveillance.



πŸ–‹️ SWANK Dispatch | June 2024
THEY SAY IT’S A CONCERN. I CALL IT A PATTERN.

Filed Under: Professional Collusion, Mental Health Misuse, Home Education Disrespect, Coercive Bureaucracy, Care Plan Theatre, Resilience Pathologised

At every turn, they revise the narrative.
Not because new harm emerged—
but because no harm ever existed.

Thus the fictional threat transforms into a real weapon:
a fabricated mental health concern, wielded to undermine and outmaneuver a mother with no criminal record, no incidents, and no diagnosis—
only clarity, documentation, and unyielding resistance.

🌫️ THEIR VERSION OF CONCERN:

  • “Mother does not attend therapy.”

  • “Mother is resistant to professionals.”

  • “Mother has a tone.”

  • “Mother refused to consent to... [redacted — no consent was needed].”

Never once:

  • “Mother hits child.”

  • “Mother neglects medical care.”

  • “Mother failed to provide.”

  • “Mother’s children are distressed.”

Because none apply.

πŸ—‚️ REALITY ARCHIVED:

  • Children thriving in daily yoga, AI programming, acting auditions, and ethics seminars.

  • 54 documents submitted.

  • Medical exemptions ignored.

  • Court records falsified and unacknowledged.

  • Requests for risk specificity dismissed with: “we’re worried you don’t understand.”

Translation:
“We cannot explain what we’re doing, but we’re doing it anyway.”

πŸ›‘ CALL IT WHAT IT IS:

  • Involuntary psychological profiling.

  • Systemic coercion masquerading as help.

  • Punishment for medical advocacy.

  • Mislabelled refusal as instability.

  • The only true instability is the institution’s grip on lawful practice.

πŸ”’ FINAL ENTRY:

“Support is not support when you can’t leave.”
“Care is not care when it’s conditional on compliance.”
“Trust cannot be demanded by those who gaslight the truth.”

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
πŸ“ Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
πŸ“§ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Labels: snobby, false safeguarding, mental health weaponisation, home education dignity, SWANK surveillance resistance, sovereign parenting, professional misconduct, care plan abuse, unsupported support, court manipulation, pattern not protection

If You Don’t Respect Written Communication, You Are Not Safeguarding. You’re Stalking.

 πŸ–‹ SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

YOU’RE NOT “CHECKING IN”—YOU’RE LOOPING.
Also Titled: 

Filed Under: Repeat Referrals, Verbal Coercion, Disregard for Disability, RBKC Redundancy, Court-Evading Safeguarding, NHS Collusion


πŸ“Ž SUBJECT: Referral from Chelsea & Westminster Hospital

Received by: Samira Issa & Eric Wedge-Bull
Rejected by: Common sense, basic chronology, and every previous reply


“I hope this email is received well.”
— Samira Issa, sending her fourth request for phone or in-person discussion on the same incident already addressed.

You hope it’s received well?

It won’t be.

It’s being received like this:
STOP.


🧾 Recap of Reality:

  • The “incident” occurred on 2 January 2024.

  • Referral already answered.

  • No new event. No new risk.

  • Court has been informed.

  • Mother has legal representation.

And still — here you are, again.


⚖️ The Legal Posture:

This is harassment.
This is institutional stalking.
This is retaliation for formal medical complaints.

Your department is not seeking clarity — you’re seeking control.


πŸ“ž What Samira asked:

“Would you be able to meet with me in person?”
“A verbal conversation would be beneficial…”

🫁 What the mother replied:

“I cannot breathe.”
“I have repeatedly stated that I cannot talk on the phone.”
“Nothing new has happened.”
“You need to contact the court.”
“Do not contact me again.”

And yet — you came back anyway.


✍️ Let Us Be Clear:

WE DO NOT DO “VERBAL CLARITY.”

We do recorded, time-stamped, documented refusal.

If you need information: Read the file.
If you need direction: Speak to the court.
If you need confirmation: Check the date.


❌ There is no unmet need.

❌ There is no safeguarding risk.

❌ There is no consent to verbal engagement.

But there is plenty of written evidence that you keep ignoring boundaries — even while claiming to “safeguard” them.


Noelle Meline
Already referred. Already replied. Already done.
πŸ“© complaints@swankarchive.com


Labels: snobby, formal refusal, safeguarding harassment, verbal coercion, written-only mandate, social work stalking, NHS referral loop, Chelsea & Westminster collusion, RBKC incompetence, court avoidance tactics, asthmatic sovereignty

Eric and Jess Came Over. They Saw Ballet Shoes and Boxes. They Wrote a Book About Trauma (And Invented a Urine Bin).



πŸ–‹ SWANK Dispatch | 12 July 2023
WE WERE NEVER ASSESSED. WE WERE OBSERVED AND JUDGED.
Also Titled: “Eric and Jess Came Over. They Saw Ballet Shoes and Boxes. They Wrote a Book About Trauma (And Invented a Urine Bin).”

Filed Under: Social Worker Surveillance, Narrative Fabrication, Health Disregard, Observation Bias, Fictional Evidence, RBKC Gaslighting, Legal Pre-Lit


🏷️ Subject: RBKC Initial Contact

Conducted by: Eric Wedge-Bull & Jessica Miller
Sanctioned by: Robert Young, Gatekeeper of the Imaginary


🧾 Allegation:

“We received a police report… cannabis… shouting… a bin filled with urine…”

🧻 Let’s pause here:

THERE WAS NO URINE BIN.

None.
Not present.
Not visible.
Not documented by anyone who attended the home.

But it made its way into the official record — because social work, in this case, prefers the literary genre of fictional hygiene horror over actual observation.


🎭 What Was Actually Observed:

  • A family preparing for a move

  • Boxes — naturally.

  • Children: articulate, engaged, joyful

  • No cannabis

  • No signs of neglect

  • No distress

  • No “urine bin”

  • Just a chronically ill mother doing her best while stalked by bureaucratic nonsense


πŸ‘©‍πŸ‘§‍πŸ‘¦ The Children:

  • Described their mum as loving, warm, supportive

  • Shared stories of ballet, gymnastics, coding, gardening, play

  • One child said: “Mummy does everything for us.”

  • Another said: “We hug her when she’s sad.”

No fear. No confusion. Just familial tenderness.
Which, of course, the system mistrusts.


πŸ“š The Narrative Pivot:

“Three police referrals…”
“She gets angry…”
“There might be trauma…”
“She should probably get therapy…”
“And — again — there was allegedly a urine bin…”

Because when abuse can’t be found, the state will reach for metaphor.


🧠 Let Us Be Very Clear:

This was not an “assessment.”
It was speculative surveillance disguised as support.

And where truth didn’t cooperate, fiction filled the gaps.


🧾 Conclusion:

  • No cannabis use by the mother

  • No risk to the children

  • No urine bin — just a lie printed in a PDF

  • No distress — except the kind caused by being repeatedly watched, questioned, and gaslit by the very agencies assigned to “help”


Noelle Meline
Diagnosed. Documented. Defamed. Still standing.
πŸ“© complaints@swankarchive.com


Labels: snobby, serious, SWANK tribunal, fictional evidence, made-up urine bin, Eric Wedge-Bull, Jessica Miller, RBKC misconduct, asthma ignored, trauma spectacle, home education bias, narrative distortion, legal escalation pending

If I Can’t Breathe, I Also Can’t Chat



πŸ–‹ SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024
THE ART OF NOT LISTENING: Social Work as a Performance of Deafness

Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Verbal Coercion, Retaliatory Safeguarding, Email Theatre, Reasonable Adjustment Violations, Medico-Legal Escalation


Dear Samira Issa,

You have now contacted me three times regarding the same incidentThe same. Let us say it in a larger font for the bureaucrats at the back:

I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED.

And yet — despite a documented, medically mandated refusal to speak on the phone due to asthmaPTSD, and muscle tension dysphonia, you wrote:

“Would you be able to meet with me in person? A verbal conversation will be beneficial…”

Bene-ficial.
To whom, exactly?

Because it is certainly not beneficial to me, a mother with a breathing condition so severe that it has hospitalised me. Nor is it lawful, moral, or in compliance with Equality Act 2010 standards.


Let Us Clarify the Hierarchy of Needs:

  • Breathing > Bureaucracy

  • Safety > Surveillance

  • Written Adjustments > Forced Conversation

You do not get to override disability law to suit your referral performance metrics.

You are not an agent of support. You are an agent of repetition.


This is harassment.
This is a violation.
This is legal evidence.

Your refusal to acknowledge written instructions is no longer merely inappropriate. It is institutional negligence. And worse — it is part of a pattern. The same hospital. The same incident. The same referral. Again. Again. Again.

I do not need help.
I need you to stop pretending not to understand.


So, let me be emphatically, typographically clear:

NO.
I will not speak on the phone.
NO.
I will not come to your office.
NO.
I will not engage with a safeguarding system that is, in practice, a loop of psychological abuse.


I have now retained legal counsel.

Expect a formal action regarding:

  • Medical negligence

  • Disability discrimination

  • Institutional harassment under the guise of “concern”

Until then, refrain from contacting me outside of strictly written, legal correspondence.

If you require clarification, please re-read the above. In fact, re-read this entire dispatch aloud in your office — and then ask yourself why social work has become the front desk of systemic trauma.


Noelle Meline
Voice Withheld for Medical Reasons. But Still Sovereign.
πŸ“© complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, safeguarding fraud, disability rights, statutory breach, legal escalation, verbal coercion refusal, repeat referral abuse, RBKC misconduct, NHS collusion, mother under siege, medically silenced

I Already Told You I Can’t Breathe, But You Keep Dialling

 πŸ–‹ SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

We Do Not Consent to Medical Gaslighting Loops

Filed Under: Bureaucratic Harassment, Disability Disregard, Institutional Loops, Medical Negligence, Written Communication Mandate


Dear Samira Issa,

Thank you ever so much for ignoring the numerous emails where I have already explained that I cannot speak on the phone due to severe asthma, panic attacks, and a speech-affecting disability. The silence I requested was not an invitation for repeated verbal coercion.

Let’s clarify something in the Queen’s serif:

  • You are not entitled to a verbal conversation.

  • I have already answered this referral.

  • It is the same incident.

  • Again.

  • Yes. Still the same.

If you are concerned about your own mental health, you may wish to investigate why you are contacting a disabled mother again for an incident already handled — again. I suggest the mirror. Or perhaps a printed copy of the Equality Act 2010 in bold font, Times New Roman, size 48, glued to your screen.

Your insistence on phone calls is both medically negligent and legally inappropriate, considering:

  • I am under medical instruction to limit all verbal speech.

  • My communication adjustment needs have been documented.

  • You are in breach of reasonable adjustment obligations.

And now, you're pursuing in-person meetings — as if dragging a breathless mother into your office is somehow a safeguarding act? It isn’t. It’s harassment.

I have now retained a solicitor for medical negligence and will be including Kensington & Chelsea Children’s Services in a legal claim for sustained emotional distress, harassment, and disability discrimination.

You may consider this a written cease and desist notice. Any further attempts to coerce verbal or in-person communication without medical clearance will be recorded and submitted as additional evidence of retaliatory safeguarding.

This isn’t support. It’s surveillance.
This isn’t care. It’s coercion.
This isn’t safeguarding. It’s sabotage.

And no, I will not be calling you back.

Ever.


Noelle Meline
πŸ–‹ Mother. Sovereign. Litigator-in-Training.
πŸ“© complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, serious, bureaucratic abuse, disability rights, gaslighting refusal, escalation pending, no verbal communication, RBKC misconduct, repeat referral harassment, institutional neglect

Documented Obsessions