⟡ “They Forgot the Visit. I Remembered the Year They Didn’t.” ⟡
A timestamped email confirming a missed appointment by Westminster safeguarding. The social worker didn’t arrive. The parent was sick. The reply offered a screenshot. But this wasn’t about a Thursday — it was about a full year of being ignored, then blamed.
Filed: 9 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_MissedVisit_SchedulingDenial_DisengagementStatement.pdf
Polly Chromatic emails Kirsty Hornal to document a missed visit, assert illness boundaries, and withdraw from live contact. She cc’s her GP and solicitor. WCC’s response attempts to shift accountability with an attached screenshot. The archive captures what they tried to forget.
I. What Happened
A scheduled safeguarding visit was missed — by the social worker.
Polly Chromatic:
Waited
Was ill
And then wrote to say exactly what happened:
“Social worker didn’t show up today. I’m tired of being bothered while I’m sick.”
She also clarified:That she wouldn’t be home on her birthday
That she was no longer replying after a year of being ignored
That the safeguarding dynamic was exhaustive, not supportive
The reply?
A casual:
“Oh I was expecting to see you… see attached screenshot :)”
No apology.
No plan.
Just a JPEG and a smiley.
II. What the Email Establishes
That Westminster failed to attend their own visit
That illness and exhaustion were ignored context
That responsibility was attempted to be shifted back to the parent
That WCC maintained a professional record with no emotional accountability
That the parent had been engaging consistently — until the silence became louder than the contact
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because missed appointments become “non-engagement” when written by the wrong hand. Because screenshots aren’t apologies. And because when the State can’t keep its calendar but writes you down as absent, only the archive remembers the truth.
SWANK archived this because:
It exposes procedural laziness masked as concern
It reveals the emotional boundary-setting the parent had to enforce herself
It shows that “disengagement” is often a survival strategy, not defiance
It provides a documented reversal: the institution became unreliable, and the parent became the historian
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Adjustment ignored despite illness disclosure
• Section 27: Procedural neglect reframed as disengagementChildren Act 1989 –
• Missed visit not logged appropriately
• No follow-up assessment of missed appointment impactSocial Work England Code –
• Lack of accountability
• Defensive record-keeping over supportive practiceProfessional Ethics (Public Authority) –
• No reflective acknowledgement of failed attendance
• Casual tone in response to clinical and legal withdrawal
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to miss your own meeting and then email a screenshot. You don’t get to ignore someone for a year and then act surprised when they stop replying. And you don’t get to mistake polite withdrawal for neglect when it was your silence that started it.
SWANK London Ltd. recognises this document as a procedural reversal — where the safeguarding file fails, and the SWANK file replaces it.
⟡ 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.