⟡ SWANK Exhaustion Transcript: The Email Loop Samira Couldn’t Exit ⟡
9–18 February 2024
The Only “Concerning Pattern” Was the Inbox Behaviour of RBKC
I. Introduction: A Referral for a Referral Already Referred
RBKC Social Worker Samira Issa initiated repeated contact regarding a hospital referral from Chelsea and Westminster—based on an incident at St. Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024.
This incident had already been acknowledged.
Already discussed.
Already dismissed.
Polly Chromatic’s responses—initially courteous, later exhausted—formed a pattern of lawful refusal. The only pattern missed was the one in Samira’s inbox.
II. Highlights from the SWANK Transcript
9 February 2024 | 6:51 AM
“They are referring me for the same incident that I’ve already spoken with you about... I am concerned about your mental health... I have asthma and cannot communicate via phone.”
9 February 2024 | 2:59 PM
“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”
9 February 2024 | 3:04 PM
“I am spending time with my kids. I do not want to waste my time with you. Call a lawyer.”
13 February 2024 | Samira responds
Claims it’s a “separate incident.” Suggests another verbal meeting—again.
18 February 2024 | Polly responds
“We will be available at 4pm Wednesday 21st February.”
A brief opening—extended despite institutional exhaustion.
III. Email Behaviour as Procedural Misconduct
Across this correspondence:
Samira claims to have read previous emails
Then requests the same thing again
Refers the same incident as if it were new
Ignores explicit references to asthma-related verbal restrictions
Ignores repeated use of the word harassment
Meanwhile, Polly had:
✔️ Provided documentation
✔️ Asserted her legal representation
✔️ Declined verbal contact on medical grounds
✔️ Replied in writing—more than once
This is not miscommunication.
It’s a refusal to accept written autonomy.
IV. When “We Need to Speak” Becomes Systemic Gaslighting
This was not safeguarding.
It was performative dominance through forced conversation.
It was a refusal to read in order to retain power.
Polly said:
“Please refrain from contacting me again.”
RBKC replied:
“Would you be willing to meet me in person?”
That isn’t misreading.
It’s administrative gaslighting by design.
© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
This isn’t safeguarding—it’s inbox intrusion as institutional ritual.
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy