“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Surveillance Trauma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Surveillance Trauma. Show all posts

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.

⟡ 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.
No comments: