⟡ “We’re Sick, I Can’t Speak, and You’re Still Coming?” ⟡
“It’s not just harassment if I have to reschedule it myself.”
Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAILS-06
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_EmailRequest_WCC_RescheduleVisit_DisabilityHealthCrisis.pdf
Email requesting the rescheduling of a child protection visit due to active illness and respiratory disability. Westminster proceeded regardless.
I. What Happened
On 24 September 2024, the parent submitted a written request to Westminster Children’s Services asking for a planned visit to be rescheduled due to:
An ongoing viral illness affecting the entire household
A well-documented respiratory disability impacting the parent's ability to speak
The continued arrival of new, unauthorised individuals in the home without consent
The tone was civil. The legal grounds were clear. The request was made in writing.
It was ignored.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Westminster received a lawful request for written communication and visit rescheduling under medical duress
That they had already been made aware of the parent’s verbal disability — and proceeded to demand in-person interaction
That strangers continued to be sent into the home despite a formal objection
That illness, trauma, and relocation were treated as inconveniences — not as grounds for pause
That this was not a missed procedural step. It was enforcement by attrition.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when you have to reschedule your own safeguarding visit due to illness, and they show up anyway —
that’s not support. It’s escalation.
Because when you explain that you cannot speak due to a documented medical condition, and they continue showing up unannounced —
that’s not oversight. It’s harassment.
And when you write it all down, politely, and it’s still ignored —
you stop asking for accommodation.
You start filing records.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
Failure to implement reasonable adjustments for a known verbal and respiratory disabilityChildren Act 1989 / 2004
Procedural refusal to reschedule safeguarding visits during a medical crisisHuman Rights Act 1998 – Article 8
Unlawful interference with private and family life during illnessCare Act 2014 (Statutory Guidance)
Failure to respect a disabled parent’s expressed limits in light of documented vulnerability
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t just procedural overreach.
It was targeted persistence.
We didn’t say no.
We said: “We are sick. Please come later.”
You came anyway.
So now we say:
This wasn’t protection. It was refusal to disengage.
And now — it’s evidence.
⟡ 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.