⟡ “We Complained. They Retaliated. So We Filed.” ⟡
Polly Chromatic Files Formal Complaint With Social Work England Against Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for Disability Discrimination, Safeguarding Retaliation, and Misrepresentation
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_SWEComplaint_KirstyHornal_SamBrown_PLO_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Summary: Formal referral to Social Work England citing repeated professional breaches by Westminster Children’s Services staff in response to lawful complaints and medical disclosure.
I. What Happened
On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England, detailing:
– Receipt of a Public Law Outline (PLO) letter on 14 April from Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown
– That this PLO action contradicted previous written statements that the investigation was voluntary
– That the escalation followed parental complaints and medical disclosures
– That allegations in the letter were factually false, discriminatory, and retaliatory
Supporting evidence includes:
Emails from Kirsty Hornal contradicting the PLO’s allegations
Proof of disability and communication adjustment notices
Video and medical documentation showing stability and institutional harm
II. What the Record Establishes
• The PLO was issued immediately after formal complaints were submitted
• Westminster staff refused disability accommodations (written-only contact)
• The allegations in the PLO were false, defamatory, or knowingly misleading
• SWE Professional Standards were violated, including:
Standard 1.2, 2.5, 5.1: Communication, dignity, non-discrimination
Standard 5.5: Retaliation after complaints
Standard 3.11: Recordkeeping accuracy
Standard 6.2: Duty to challenge internal wrongdoing
• The complaint demands a full regulatory investigation into retaliation and abuse of power
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because retaliation escalated through safeguarding is not protection — it's coercion.
Because when disability is ignored and weaponised, that’s not support — it’s obstruction.
Because no one believes it until the complaint is typed, timestamped, and archived.
SWANK logs not just injustice — but the moment the complaint turned into a timeline.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be triggered as punishment for legal complaints.
We do not accept that medical needs must be repeatedly stated to be respected.
We do not accept that professionals can invent harm, then call it concern.
This wasn’t social work. It was legal retaliation.
And SWANK will document every licensed professional who blurred that line.
⟡ 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:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.