⟡ SWANK Evidence Dispatch: The Visit That Wasn’t Voluntary ⟡
4 July 2023
You Asked for My Address. I Gave It. And You Weaponised It.
Labels: social worker overreach, Eric Wedge-Bull, address misuse, RBKC visit audit, safeguarding entrapment, SWANK consent withdrawal
—
I. The Email That Began with Politeness—and Ended in Procedural Invasion
On 4 July 2023 at 17:22, Noelle Bonneannée sends a courteous message:
“That’s fine. The address is 37 Elgin Crescent basement flat W11 2JD.”
In response to:
“We wondered whether we could come and see you all at your new address next Monday afternoon around 3 pm…” — Eric Wedge-Bull, Advanced Practitioner and Deputy Consultant Social Worker, RBKC
What sounds like a casual check-in was later recoded as a safeguarding visit, then used in documentation as if it had not been consented to voluntarily.
—
II. When a Visit Is Not Just a Visit
Eric's original request:
Was warm
Referenced a previous visit with Jess
Lacked mention of safeguarding
Gave the impression of friendly continuity, not concern
But post-visit, this polite exchange was rebranded as if Noelle had been under surveillance.
—
III. The SWANK Principle: Consent Cannot Be Retroactively Redefined
Noelle’s reply demonstrates:
Responsiveness
Transparency
Trust
What she received in return was narrative reengineering.
A slow-motion betrayal staged in procedural formatting.
—
Filed under:
false pretence visitation, weaponised address disclosure, Eric Wedge-Bull archive, RBKC distortion protocol, SWANK trust evidence
© SWANK Archive. All Patterns Reserved. If they needed to pretend it was consented, it means they already knew it wasn’t.