They Documented Their Own Retaliation — And Emailed It to Me With a Smile

---

⟡ “They Said It Was ‘Support.’ I Called It a Medically Dangerous Trespass.” ⟡
An evidentiary email from Westminster Social Worker Rachel Pullen, documenting how lawful boundaries were ignored, medical harm was escalated, and staff rotation became a weapon — not a service.

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/VISIT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_RachelPullen_DisabilityRefusal_VisitRetaliation.pdf
Email from Rachel Pullen confirming Westminster’s refusal to honour lawful disability adjustments, continuation of unannounced visits, and reintroduction of known harmful staff despite medical risk and active complaint filings.

---

I. What Happened

In September 2024, while under active medical risk from asthma, dysphonia, and legal trauma, Polly Chromatic received repeated pressure and boundary-violating visits from Westminster Children’s Services.

This email, from Rachel Pullen, does the following:

• Acknowledges the parent’s request for written-only contact

• Ignores that request by announcing upcoming visits anyway

• Names new social workers (e.g. Edward) and reintroduces Kirsty Hornal, despite prior complaints

• Disregards disability as a reason for protection — instead, treating it as a delay tactic

• Treats “support” as synonymous with access, presence, and verbal compliance

The harm was not incidental. It was structured — and documented.

---

II. What the Email Establishes

• That written-only communication was acknowledged but not respected

• That staff changes were made unilaterally, ignoring trauma-informed care

• That active safeguarding complaints did not pause intrusion — they provoked it

• That illness, legal protection, and parental request were reframed as opposition

• That verbal coercion was procedurally prioritised over medical safety

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a disabled person documents their needs and a state agency responds by sending in more staff, what’s happening is no longer care — it’s control. This email is not a support record. It’s a procedural confession.

SWANK archived it to:

• Record the moment Westminster officially ignored lawful disability accommodation

• Preserve the institutional pattern of rotating unfamiliar staff despite protest

• Show that intrusion intensified in direct proportion to complaint and resistance

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010
  • Section 20: Refusal to make reasonable adjustments
  • Section 27: Victimisation through continued contact
  • Section 149: Ignoring public duty to eliminate discrimination

• Children Act 1989 – Disruption of emotionally safe home and educational setting

• Human Rights Act 1998 –
  • Article 8: Family life
  • Article 3: Protection from degrading treatment

• Social Work England Standards – Disrespect of boundaries, consent, and evidence

• UNCRPD – Denial of accessible, voluntary, and medically safe service structure

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. It is state-led gaslighting with an appointment window. A social worker acknowledged disability needs — and then scheduled a verbal visit anyway. A parent rejected contact — and was sent more strangers. A child’s care was disrupted — and the council called that concern.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this as a written record of coercive service masquerading as care — and files it accordingly.

---

⟡ 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.