“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 verbal access denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label verbal access denial. Show all posts

From Acknowledgement to Intimidation: The Sam Brown Letter


⟡ “We Acknowledge Your Disability — Now Prove You’re Not Mentally Unfit.” ⟡

Sam Brown of Westminster sends a formal response acknowledging written-only communication needs while conditioning engagement on psychiatric compliance and in-person demands.

Filed: 25 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-RESPONSE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-25_SWANK_WestminsterResponse_SamBrown_PLO_CoercionDespiteDisability.pdf
Evidence of institutional contradiction: disability acknowledgment paired with retaliatory psychiatric conditions and refusal to accept nonverbal attendance.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic had formally notified Westminster of:

  • Medically supported disability barriers (muscle dysphonia, PTSD, asthma)

  • The need for written-only interaction

  • Refusal of verbal engagement as a legal and clinical right

In response, Sam Brown:

  • Required virtual attendance using Microsoft Teams (despite verbal restriction)

  • Suggested typed “chat” as sufficient disability accommodation

  • Pre-conditioned the PLO meeting on psychiatric and paediatric assessments

  • Acknowledged remedial GCSE support for Regal (Romeo) but framed it transactionally

II. What the Document Establishes

  • That Westminster knew about written-only requirements and tried to dilute them

  • That verbal speech was still used as a gatekeeping tool

  • That psychiatric surveillance was being used to challenge lawful resistance

  • That previous discrimination was not remedied — only rebranded

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because an institution that acknowledges disability but then coerces verbal compliance is engaging in ableist retaliation.

Because written rights are not chat-box privileges.
Because every disability acknowledgment that ends with “but” is discrimination in disguise.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 15, 19, 20

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 and 14

  • Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149): Ignored in PLO access design

  • Misuse of psychiatric assessment to challenge lawful adjustments

  • Procedural coercion disguised as support

V. SWANK’s Position

They wrote it. They meant it.
They wanted the appearance of compliance without the substance of protection.

This is not just a reply — it’s an exhibit.

⟡ 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