“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

The Day They Decided My Medical Boundaries Were Optional.


⟡ “We’re Sick. We’re Disabled. They Scheduled a Visit.” ⟡
A six-page email chain between Polly Chromatic and Westminster Council’s Rachel Pullen. The parent requests verbal adjustments, defers a visit due to illness, and objects to strangers entering her home. Rachel ignores every clause, demands a fixed date, and slides Kirsty Hornal into the reply thread. This wasn’t negotiation. It was a prelude to procedural harm.

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RETALIATION-04
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailChain_RachelPullen_VisitObjection_DisabilityIgnored_KHornalInserted.pdf
Thread documenting Westminster Council’s refusal to reschedule a safeguarding visit despite documented disability and illness. The parent objects to non-consensual home access and cites child trauma risk. The reply ignores every adjustment request and pre-assigns Kirsty Hornal. The chain marks the moment polite email became procedural violence.

I. What Happened

Between 20–24 September 2024, Polly Chromatic emailed Rachel Pullen. She said:

  • “We are sick with a virus… please don’t come tomorrow.”

  • “I have a disability that affects verbal speech. I prefer email.”

  • “I will not allow new workers around my children.”

  • “Your visits are creating medical harm and psychological danger.”

  • “This is not paranoia. This is procedural trauma from prior experiences.”

Rachel Pullen replied:

  • “We will definitely need to visit next Tuesday at 3:30pm.”

  • “We can’t keep rescheduling…”

  • Introduced: Kirsty Hornal

  • Ignored: all disability disclosures

  • Reframed: refusal of strangers as resistance, not protection

The reply was polite.
The result was coercive.

II. What the Email Thread Establishes

  • That written disability and medical concerns were raised clearly

  • That procedural inflexibility was prioritised over child and parental safety

  • That WCC refused to acknowledge past trauma or legal rights

  • That verbal communication boundaries were once again ignored

  • That a known safeguarding escalator (Hornal) was inserted mid-thread as a tactic

This wasn’t about the child.
It was about control and non-compliance correction.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no safeguarding officer should insist on entering a sick home to meet a disabled parent who’s already told you — in writing — that your visits are unsafe. Because “we’re unwell” should not trigger an escalation. And because when they say you were uncooperative, this file says: No. You were medically reasonable. They were procedurally retaliatory.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It documents written refusal of disability adjustment

  • It confirms intentional scheduling despite stated harm

  • It contains preemptive rejection of new personnel

  • It marks the pretextual re-entry of Kirsty Hornal — against stated boundaries

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: No adjustment for illness or communication disability
    • Section 26: Emotional harm via procedural inflexibility
    • Section 27: Escalation in response to medical boundary

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Interference in private and family life through unnecessary visitation
    • Article 3: Cruel and degrading treatment via disregard of parental illness and vulnerability

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Misuse of safeguarding authority to force unnecessary contact
    • Increased psychological risk to child via forced reentry of known harmful worker

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to ignore illness because your calendar is full. You don’t get to call parental protection paranoia. And you absolutely don’t get to assign Kirsty Hornal when the parent has already declared her a procedural threat — on record. What Rachel Pullen wrote was civil. What she enforced was institutional aggression.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a safeguarding retaliation trigger chain, and a record of disability boundary override by Westminster staff.

⟡ 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.