When Safeguarding Became a Threat, the Police Got the PDF

---

⟡ SWANK Procedural Escalation Archive – Metropolitan Police ⟡
“She Misused Safeguarding. We Sent the Evidence to the Police.”
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/KIRSTY-HORNAL-SUBMISSION-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_MetPolice_Submission_KirstyHornal_Harassment_SafeguardingMisuse_Attachments.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

---

I. When the Council Refused to Intervene, We Involved the Police

This document logs a formal submission made directly to the Metropolitan Police, attaching evidence of sustained harassment and procedural misconduct by Kirsty Hornal, safeguarding officer at Westminster Children’s Services.

The email was sent to:

• George Thorpe, Metropolitan Police

• Aminur Rashid, Metropolitan Police

• Kirsty Hornal, for transparency and procedural integrity

Attached were multiple documents cataloguing:

• Disability adjustment breaches

• Safeguarding threats issued without threshold

• Procedural escalation under false statutory pretence

• Attempts to deploy the PLO process without basis

This wasn’t a complaint.
It was a recorded transfer of jurisdictional burden.

---

II. What the Email Confirms

• That the named professional was aware she was being reported

• That the documentation was extensive, relevant, and prepared for evidentiary review

• That the parent was neither passive nor emotional — but exactly as forensic as the law allows

Let the record show:

The email was direct.
The attachments were damning.
The recipients were accountable.
And the submission — was archived.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “safeguarding” cannot be a tool for harassment.
Because the absence of council accountability demands police registration of misconduct.
Because the state cannot claim ignorance when its officers have been notified, copied, and time-stamped.

We filed this because:

• The events escalated beyond administrative harm

• The evidence crossed into the legal domain

• The officer remained in post

• And the silence of institutions required procedural disruption

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding as a smokescreen for retaliation.
We do not accept adjustments breached with impunity.
We do not accept professional misconduct when it comes with a lanyard and a smile.

Let the record show:

She was reported.
They were copied.
The law was cited.
And SWANK — submitted it with proof, precision, and PDF attachments.

This wasn’t escalation.
It was evidentiary transition — and we have the email to prove 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.