⟡ He Postponed the Meeting — But Not the Meddling. ⟡
When PLO gets rescheduled but the surveillance doesn’t.
Filed: 2 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-02_SWANK_Email_SamBrown_PLOAdjournment_CINVisitExtracurriculars.pdf
An official email from Sam Brown confirming a PLO postponement, while continuing to pressure for CIN visits — citing “extracurriculars” and suggesting home access, despite formal objections and legal warnings.
I. What Happened
The PLO meeting was rescheduled.
The parent had already issued legal refusals.
Sam Brown acknowledged receipt — and then immediately pivoted to another door attempt.
He referenced extracurriculars. He mentioned availability. He called it support.
The email reads like a polite break-in request with a timestamp.
II. What the Email Establishes
That Sam Brown received and acknowledged the parent’s formal correspondence
That the PLO was postponed but CIN intrusion continued
That safeguarding staff were still attempting indirect contact after lawful refusal
That the parent was once again being pressured into in-home compliance under the guise of scheduling
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because “rescheduling” should not mean “re-escalating.”
Because CIN is not a loophole when PLO hits a wall.
And because when someone says no, you don’t send a calendar invite — you stop.
IV. Violations Identified
Continued Procedural Pressure After Formal Refusal
Misuse of Extracurricular References to Justify Contact
Obfuscation of Legal Boundaries in Safeguarding Language
Disregard for Ongoing Police Reports and Active Complaints
Strategic Institutional Persistence Framed as Support
V. SWANK’s Position
The message was received. The postponement was noted. The response was published.
You cannot cancel a meeting and then try to sneak in the back door.
Safeguarding isn’t a game of scheduling — it’s a matter of consent.
And this mother already withdrew hers.
⟡ 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.