PC43214: Being a Modest Inquiry Into the Curious Habit of Reading Words That Are Not There

A Matrix of Contradictions

Being a Modest Inquiry Into the Curious Habit of Reading Words That Are Not There

This document is a textual comparison, not an argument.

It places a County Court injunction beside subsequent Local Authority correspondence and observes — calmly, patiently, and without interpretation — that the words later attributed to the order do not, in fact, appear in it.

No advocacy is attempted.
No emotion is required.
No inference is drawn beyond what the text itself permits.

The matrix demonstrates how:

• routing and frequency controls were recast as subject-matter prohibitions,
• lawful correspondence was recharacterised as misconduct,
• Equality Act protections were treated as optional, and
• a County Court order was applied as though it had quietly migrated jurisdictions.

This is not commentary on intent.
It is an exercise in reading.

What You Are Purchasing

• A formally structured contradiction matrix suitable for court, audit, or oversight use
• A side-by-side comparison grounded exclusively in primary source texts
• A model for documenting mischaracterisation without editorialising
• A reusable evidentiary format for identifying administrative overreach

Who This Is For

• Lawyers, judges, and legal academics
• Parents navigating family court systems
• Policy professionals and safeguarding reviewers
• Anyone interested in how power behaves when it assumes nobody will check the footnotes

Tone & Method

Dry.
Textual.
Unimpressed.

This is not a blog post.
It is a legal-aesthetic instrument, filed with deliberate punctuation and preserved for reference.

Because words matter.
And when they are rearranged, it is polite — and occasionally necessary — to notice.