⟡ “I’m Not Responding to Emails Since No One Responded to Mine for a Full Year” ⟡
A Documented Silence That Became Policy — and Proof of Why Disabled Withdrawal Is Not Consent
Filed: 13 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-13_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_Withdrawal_DisabilityNeglectChain.pdf
Forwarded email confirming social worker no-show, followed by withdrawal of communication due to institutional silence. Sent to legal, medical, and social services professionals.
I. What Happened
On 13 January 2025, Polly Chromatic re-sent her earlier “no-show” notification — this time attaching a declaration of procedural withdrawal. She stated she would no longer be responding to emails due to a year of being ignored.
This was not sent in isolation. The recipients included:
Legal representative Laura Savage
Social worker Kirsty Hornal
NHS GP Philip Reid
Solicitor Simon O’Meara
The message was factual, non-theatrical, and strategically precise: she was not refusing support — she was refusing to perform availability for people who never answered.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Written withdrawal of consent for participation in a non-reciprocal system
Disability neglect framed as ongoing (not situational)
Cross-agency nonresponse as trauma catalyst
Failure to acknowledge distress even after medical escalation
State-of-health update deliberately ignored by those charged with monitoring welfare
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because silence from a disabled person is often treated as compliance — especially when it's been provoked by a year of professional indifference.
This email is the textual equivalent of a door closing in slow motion. Not because of defiance, but because of exhaustion.
SWANK logs it as proof that disabled withdrawal is often misrepresented as disengagement, when it is in fact a boundary — one shaped by recordable abandonment.
IV. SWANK’s Position
This was not non-engagement. It was legal trauma management.
We do not accept that silence, when caused by institutional apathy, voids a person’s rights.
We do not accept that failing to respond for twelve months qualifies professionals to claim “unreachable.”
We will document every refusal that began as a plea — and every professional silence that sculpted retreat into recordable harm.
⟡ 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.