Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): truancy threats

Showing posts with label truancy threats. Show all posts

“Please Email Me a Letter” — Said 27 Times, Ignored Every One

📚 SWANK Dispatch: Exhibit A — The Facebook Record That Should Have Been a Formal Letter

🗓️ 7 August 2020

Filed Under: homeschool obstruction, evidence of compliance, social work escalation, educational gatekeeping, digital documentation, policy evasion, truancy threats, legal overreach

“The record was digital, the neglect was institutional.”
— A Mother With a Screenshot and a Syllabus

In this final escalation to Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Polly Chromatic didn’t just explain the past three years — she documented them. With timestamps. Screenshots. Email threads. And an unassailable transcript of evidence pulled directly from Facebook Messenger, lovingly titled Exhibit A.

What she revealed was not a story.
It was a bureaucratic slow-burn:
Approval dangled.
Letters promised.
Deadlines missed.
Children threatened.

🧾 I. The Timeline Is Not Alleged. It’s Archived.

• 15 June 2017 – Initial message to Mark Garland via Facebook
• 26 June 2017 – In-person meeting at 3pm in Grand Turk
• 4 September 2017 – Mark finally requests her curriculum
• 10+ separate written requests asking for written homeschool confirmation
• Dozens of follow-up calls, messages, and apologies for non-response
• Multiple truancy threats, including from the truancy officer (Mr Kennedy)
• Zero formal letters received

All while she followed the UK curriculum and complied with every informal instruction.

📉 II. Compliance Was Never the Problem — Communication Was

Polly:

“I am happy to adhere to whatever curriculum you want me to follow but I need to know what that is.”

Instead of clarity, she received:
• Vague emails
• Delayed replies
• Repetitive instructions
• And most devastatingly — continued harassment from the Department of Social Development for lack of a letter that had been promised but never sent.

🧠 III. Digital Evidence vs Institutional Amnesia

Mark Garland:

“I will email you this evening.”
27 times — Noelle followed up.

What she got:
✓ Approval in conversation
✓ Repeated verbal acknowledgements
✗ No formal protection from truancy accusations
✗ No shielding from social work threats

📌 Final Plea:

“Please, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to resolve this matter cooperatively.”

But cooperation is only possible when the institution holds up its end — and responds, formally, in writing, as promised.

SWANK has the receipts.
Exhibit A, archived.

You Received the Request. You Chose Not to Reply.

⟡ How Many Times Must I Ask to Homeschool Before You Stop Calling It Neglect? ⟡

Filed: 7 August 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-EDUCATION-HOWELL
📎 Download PDF — 2020-08-07_SWANK_TCI_EducationDept_HomeschoolingHarassment_LegalPetition_EdgarHowell.pdf

I. This Was Not a Request. It Was a Formal Reminder That I Already Complied.

This letter was sent to Mr. Edgar Howell, Director of Education, Turks and Caicos Islands, following years of:

Lawful homeschooling requests
Meticulously filed documentation
Repeated educational reports
And in return: truancy threats, safeguarding innuendo, and zero policy follow-through

What began as consent became suspicion.
What should’ve ended in confirmation became harassment.
And what you ignored, SWANK filed.

II. Facebook Was More Procedural Than the Ministry

The letter documents:

Attempts to register homeschooling through formal channels
Requests for written acknowledgement of lawful exemption
Staff responding through informal apps
No confirmation. No closure. No accountability.

Instead, the state defaulted to:

Monitoring
Threat
“Welfare visits”
And professional disdain veiled as outreach

This is not education policy.
This is digital avoidance stitched to analog power trips.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should be punished for following the law.
Because homeschooling is not a safeguarding issue.
Because neglecting a reply is not the same as neglecting a child.

Let the record show:

The parent submitted everything
The department responded with nothing
And still tried to escalate concern
Until this letter — filed it all

This is not a gentle reminder.
It is legal recoil, dressed in calm paragraphs.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse paperwork silence with innocence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a substitute for policy.
We do not permit institutional vagueness to justify familial distress.