⟡ We’re Sick. You’re Still Coming. And Now It’s a Matter of Record. ⟡
“You think our home is a revolving door. We think this email is admissible.”
Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-03
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailObjection_WCC_HarassmentDuringIllness_FamilyPrivacyBreach.pdf
Formal written objection to Westminster social workers entering a sick household, breaching medical boundaries and family privacy despite clear requests.
I. What Happened
On 24 September 2024, a disabled parent wrote to Westminster Children’s Services, objecting to an unrelenting pattern of home visits — despite the family being visibly ill, medically compromised, and mid-relocation.
The email requested:
Cancellation of the upcoming visit
An end to new workers entering the home
Respect for the household’s health, safety, and privacy
It followed repeated boundary violations, including:
A former social worker re-entering the home after being explicitly barred
Exposure of sick children to strangers during active illness
Dismissal of the parent’s respiratory and psychiatric conditions
Despite the clarity of the objection, the visits continued — and the disregard was logged.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster proceeded with intrusive visits during active illness and crisis
That previous boundary-setting was ignored, including the rejection of specific staff
That privacy and safety concerns regarding unknown individuals were dismissed
That verbal disability adjustments were not respected despite explicit reminders
That a pattern of procedural harassment was unfolding under the guise of routine “concern”
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because asking not to be harassed while sick should not be controversial.
Because objecting to new strangers entering the home should not be ignored.
Because a request to “please don’t come tomorrow, we’re ill” should never be met with continued surveillance.
This isn’t social work.
It’s soft-intrusion under state authority — the appearance of concern masking the persistence of control.
You bring cameras to court.
We bring email headers.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
Failure to acknowledge respiratory disability and respect written-only communicationChildren Act 1989 / 2004
Inappropriate use of statutory powers during health vulnerabilityHuman Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
Breach of private and family life, despite direct withdrawal of consentData Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR
Continued presence of unauthorised individuals in the private home of a disabled person and minor children
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a visit.
It was intrusion.
This was not “business as usual.”
It was documented resistance to consent.
We were sick. We said no.
And Westminster said, “We’re coming anyway.”
Now we say:
You were warned. Now you’re recorded.
⟡ 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:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.