“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 written communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label written communication. Show all posts

They Called It Procedure. We Called It Discrimination.


⟡ They Ignored the Adjustment. We Filed the Complaint. ⟡
“I asked to communicate in writing. They escalated safeguarding instead.”

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EHRC-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_EHRCComplaint_Westminster_DisabilityAdjustmentRetaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission citing Westminster’s refusal to implement a disability adjustment, escalation of safeguarding in retaliation, and breach of public sector equality duties.

I. What Happened

Despite receiving a written-only communication request on 22 May 2025 — supported by medical evidence, legal policy, and multiple hospitalisations — Westminster Children’s Services responded with:

  • No written reply

  • A supervision order threat

  • Unannounced visits

  • Surveillance-style behaviour

  • Complete disregard for the audit timeline

Rather than adjust, they retaliated.

Rather than reply, they acted.

And when they were reminded of the law, they doubled down.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster violated the Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27, and 149

  • That a written-only adjustment was refused despite clinical necessity and legal demand

  • That safeguarding measures were escalated directly after legal assertion of disability protections

  • That Westminster failed in its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) while under active oversight

  • That SWANK’s public audit was ignored while procedural abuse intensified

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a parent says:
“I cannot speak. Please write to me.”
And a council responds by sending someone to their door —
That’s not protection. That’s targeting.

Because this wasn’t a delay.
It was a documented refusal.

And because every ignored adjustment becomes
evidence of discrimination, once archived.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010

    • Section 20 – Reasonable adjustments not honoured

    • Section 27 – Victimisation following protected act

    • Section 149 – Failure of Public Sector Equality Duty

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 8 and 14

    • Discriminatory interference with privacy and dignity

  • Data Protection Act 2018

    • Failure to process records under accessibility requirement

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004

    • Procedural misuse under the guise of welfare concern

V. SWANK’s Position

They were asked to put it in writing.
They put someone at the door instead.

They called it safeguarding.
We call it retaliation.

This wasn’t miscommunication.
It was discriminatory by design.

And now it’s logged, filed, and escalated.

⟡ 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:

Medication, Humour, and Hostility: When Medical Updates Double as Institutional Warnings


⟡ “I Prefer to Communicate Telepathically — However, Email Is Fine” ⟡
A Medical Coordination Email That Became a Snapshot of Hospital Hostility and Verbal Disability Disregard

Filed: 23 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-23_SWANK_Email_Reid_MedicalUpdate_DisabilityNotice_HospitalAbuse.pdf
Email to Dr. Philip Reid outlining asthma medication for three children, requesting appointments, and documenting hostile treatment by hospital staff — while reasserting verbal disability adjustments.

I. What Happened

On 23 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent a concise medical update email to GP Dr. Philip Reid, cc’ing social worker Kirsty Hornal and Bcc’ing legal and mental health contacts.

She listed prednisone regimens for Honor, King, and Prince, requested appointments, and offered clinical notes relevant to Romeo’s hearing. The tone was direct, composed — but embedded with barbed precision:

“Hospital staff are hateful, defensive, belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, and contentious.”

It closed with a disability disclaimer that managed to be both comic and clear:

“I prefer to communicate telepathically… however, email is fine.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Written-only communication preference restated to medical and social professionals

  • Timely asthma updates and ear complaints entered into the care record

  • NHS hospital staff conduct formally characterised as combative and emotionally unsafe

  • Coordinated medical planning initiated by the parent — not institutions

  • Discrimination context: medical requests had to be buffered with humour to protect against dismissal

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what a disabled parent looks like when navigating a hostile system with intelligence, precision, and respiratory strain.

This email is more than a health update — it’s a meta-document: proof of parental competence, verbal disability, multi-child care coordination, and medical trauma, all in one message.

It also reveals how language must contort to remain tolerable — mixing humour with medication requests, and diplomacy with descriptions of abuse — just to be read.

SWANK logs it because you should not have to sound lighthearted to be believed.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just a message to a doctor.
It was a health safeguarding record — and a subtle diagnostic of the system itself.

We do not accept that serious disability notices must be disarmed with wit to avoid being ignored.
We do not accept that documenting hospital hostility is “inappropriate” when that hostility is medically relevant.
We will document every line where humour was used as self-protection — and every clinic where courtesy was confused with credibility.

⟡ 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:

You Had the File. You Asked for a Phone Call Anyway.


⟡ She Couldn’t Breathe. Neither Could I. And They Still Asked Me to Call. ⟡
“The GP called. I responded in writing. The social worker asked for a phone call.”

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS/EMAILS-13
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailAdjustment_WCC-NHS_HonorEmergency_VerbalDisabilityProtocol.pdf
Written response confirming verbal communication disability and coordinating emergency care for Honor. Safeguarding staff ignored the adjustment and requested a phone call anyway.

I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, during an active respiratory emergency affecting both the parent and her daughter Honor, the parent:

  • Notified Kirsty Hornal and Dr Philip Reid that Heir’s oxygen levels remained dangerously low

  • Reaffirmed that verbal disability protocols were in place and that all communication must remain written-only

  • Coordinated via email with the GP

  • Declined a phone call requested by social services, citing her well-documented respiratory and psychiatric conditions

Despite knowing that the parent could not speak — and had already provided both a medical file and written updates— social services still attempted to escalate the interaction by demanding voice contact.

The email served as both a medical update and a formal refusal to breach the Equality Act.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Westminster Children’s Services knowingly disregarded a written disability adjustment during a respiratory emergency

  • That the NHS GP was able to comply with written-only communication, but the social worker chose not to

  • That the verbal communication request was neither urgent nor legally necessary

  • That this occurred while Heir’s oxygen levels were being monitored and the parent was physically unable to speak

  • That the safeguarding framework continues to prioritise procedural dominance over legal compliance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your child is having breathing trouble and so are you — and someone asks you to call them anyway —
you’re not dealing with care. You’re dealing with control.

Because when the GP understands your limits and still responds in writing,
but the social worker doesn’t —
you’re no longer dealing with miscommunication. You’re dealing with defiance.

This isn’t failure to understand.
It’s refusal to comply.

So we complied with the law.
They didn’t.
And now we have the email.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Repeated failure to honour medically documented written-only adjustment

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3 and 8
    Interference with bodily integrity and private family life during illness

  • Care Act 2014 – Statutory Safeguarding Guidance
    Ignored communication needs of disabled parent during acute care episode

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Failure to engage appropriately during an active emergency involving a minor

V. SWANK’s Position

We weren’t trying to avoid contact.
We were trying to breathe.

We didn’t refuse support.
We refused harassment masked as protocol.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was disregard, repeated in real time.

And now — it’s logged.
And published.

⟡ 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