Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): Rachel Pullen

Showing posts with label Rachel Pullen. Show all posts

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.

They Scheduled the Visit. They Ignored the Harm. They Knew the Difference.

⟡ “I Said This Visit Would Hurt Us. They Scheduled It Anyway.” ⟡
A written refusal sent to Westminster safeguarding officer Rachel Pullen objecting to continued visits, the return of a prior worker, and disregard for medical, emotional, and procedural boundaries. The reasons were documented. The risk was clear. The reply? Silence — then more pressure.

Filed: 23 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SAFE-03
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-23_SWANK_Email_WCC_RachelPullen_VisitObjection_DisabilityDisclosure_RetaliationRisk.pdf
A calm, formal refusal to participate in further WCC safeguarding visits, citing disability, emotional harm, surveillance concerns, and the trauma triggered by Edward’s reappearance. Boundary set. Adjustment invoked. Trauma named. Ignored anyway.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic sent a detailed written response to Westminster Children’s Services, objecting to further in-person visits on the following grounds:

Respiratory disability requiring written-only contact
PTSD triggered by past safeguarding contact
Explicit harm caused by the return of a previous worker (Edward), including:
“He caused harm to us. You never addressed that.”
Emotional distress from surveillance and procedural intrusion
The loss of parental intuition and sense of safety
A direct assertion that continuing these visits would be damaging and discriminatory

This was not a “refusal to engage.”
This was a documented safeguarding intervention — from the parent to the state.

II. What the Email Establishes

That Westminster received clear, rational objections rooted in lived trauma
That the disability adjustment was formally repeated — again
That prior harm caused by Edward was known, not alleged
That emotional safety was actively being undermined by state action
That the parent had already reached a threshold of damage

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because every safeguarding team that keeps saying “we’re just trying to help” needs to be reminded that real help listens— and doesn’t retraumatise on schedule.

SWANK archived this because:

It’s a formal, timestamped refusal grounded in disability and law
It captures a powerful reversal: the parent safeguarding the family from the state
It proves that WCC received this warning and still proceeded

This isn’t “non-engagement.” This is what protective parenting looks like under siege.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Written-only communication refused
• Section 27: Retaliation through continued scheduling
• Section 149: Institutional disregard for disability and emotional wellbeing
Children Act 1989 – Safeguarding used to cause trauma, not prevent it
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 3: Inhuman or degrading treatment through procedural persistence
• Article 8: Violation of home and family life through unsafe visitation
Social Work England Standards –
• Disregard for prior harm
• Failure to establish trust
• Boundary crossing without justification

V. SWANK’s Position

You can’t say you’re protecting someone while ignoring every medically grounded, trauma-informed, legally supported warning they give you. You can’t bring back someone who caused harm — and call it care. And you can’t schedule trauma and pretend it's procedure.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this email as a formal parental safeguarding declaration — archived now as evidence that Westminster knew… and violated it anyway.

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.

She Was in Respiratory Crisis. They Were in Her Inbox.

⟡ She Said “We’re All Sick.” They Said “We’re Still Coming.” ⟡
When a disabled parent cancels a visit for medical reasons — and the council calls it “non-cooperation.”

Filed: 21 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-17
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-21_SWANK_Email_SocialWorkVisitRefusal_HealthNeedsDismissed_PullenSavageResponse.pdf
An email thread documenting a parent’s attempt to postpone a safeguarding visit due to respiratory collapse, dental treatment, and ongoing exposure to sewer gas — met with indifference by Rachel Pullen and passive complicity by Laura Savage.

I. What Happened

The parent wrote:
– She was receiving treatment at Brompton for severe respiratory disability.
– Her children had dental and asthma care scheduled.
– They were recovering from environmental poisoning.

She asked to reschedule the visit.
Rachel Pullen replied:
– “We do not consider this harassment.”
– “We will attend anyway.”
– “The police report is noted.”
Laura Savage — the legal representative — forwarded this, but took no stand.

It was not a safeguarding plan.
It was a siege.

II. What the Email Establishes

That a parent gave medical notice to reschedule based on real clinical emergencies
That Westminster proceeded anyway, citing procedural supremacy over disability
That police reports about past harassment were dismissed without inquiry
That Laura Savage failed to advocate for postponement despite medical and legal justification
That no one present acted in the interest of the child’s health — or the mother’s

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when you say “I’m too sick to meet,”
and they reply “We’re showing up anyway,”
that’s not child protection — that’s coercion.
Because requesting time to breathe shouldn't result in a breach log.
And because when your own lawyer won’t defend your lungs,
you publish instead.

IV. Violations Identified

Procedural Disregard for Medical Treatment and Disability Adjustments
Retaliatory Dismissal of Police Report Against Social Worker
Complicity by Legal Representative (Laura Savage) in Allowing Procedural Pressure
Failure to Prioritise Child Health During Recovery from Medical Emergencies
Unlawful Intrusion Under False Safeguarding Pretext

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not scheduling.
It was stalking dressed as paperwork.
You don’t get to ignore clinical records just because your calendar is full.
You don’t get to push past a parent’s hospital days to prove a point.
And if you try —
she’ll just document it louder than you planned.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

The Day They Decided My Medical Boundaries Were Optional.

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Thread Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

They Scheduled the Visit. They Ignored the Harm. They Knew the Difference.

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

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

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

She Was in Respiratory Crisis. They Were in Her Inbox.

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position