⟡ “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 wellbeingChildren 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 visitationSocial 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.
⟡ 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.