Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): June 2025

They Called It Support. Social Work England Called It Misconduct.

⟡ “Three Officers. Three Case Numbers. One Investigation Too Late.” ⟡
Social Work England opens formal misconduct complaints into the leadership of Westminster Children’s Services — confirming what the evidence already proved.

Filed: 28 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/TRIAGE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-28_SWANK_Email_SWE_TriageConfirmation_HornalNewmanBrown_CON9964-9966.pdf
Official email from Social Work England confirming active misconduct cases against Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, and Sam Brown — now under formal triage review.

I. What Happened

On 28 April 2025, Social Work England (SWE) issued this triage confirmation email to Polly Chromatic. The message affirms that not one — but three separate case files have been opened against senior Westminster officers:

CON-9964 – Kirsty Hornal
CON-9965 – Sarah Newman
CON-9966 – Sam Brown

Each case corresponds to a separate complaint filed for:

Procedural abuse
Disability discrimination
PLO retaliation
Emotional harm
Factual misrepresentation
Regulatory neglect

This isn’t internal conflict. This is regulatory collapse in motion — confirmed.

II. What the Document Establishes

SWE acknowledges that all three complaints meet the triage threshold for formal review
Each named officer is under individual scrutiny, not grouped dismissal
Westminster’s top-tier safeguarding staff are now subject to external regulation
The timing aligns with PLO misuse, Equality Act breaches, and SWANK’s evidentiary archive
The Council’s claim of “support” is now publicly incompatible with active misconduct cases

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This document is a turning point. For months, SWANK recorded what Westminster denied: that harm was done, boundaries were crossed, and laws were broken. Now, Social Work England has agreed — at least enough to launch three case reviews. This isn’t vindication. It’s verification.

SWANK archived this email to:

Establish formal regulatory recognition of institutional misconduct
Validate the scope and seriousness of the original complaints
Position this moment as the official beginning of accountability — no longer theoretical, but procedural

IV. Violations Under Review

Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination, victimisation, failure to adjust
Human Rights Act 1998 – Family life interference, fair process
Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm, misuse of safeguarding
Social Work England Professional Standards – Ethics, transparency, fairness, and accountability breaches
UK GDPR – Inaccurate or omitted data used to escalate statutory action

V. SWANK’s Position

The triage is just the beginning — but it proves everything that came before. When your complaints produce case numbers, your evidence becomes case law in waiting. Let no official ever again claim there was no merit, no harm, or no breach. This email proves: there were three.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

A full public update from SWE on the outcome of cases CON-9964 to CON-9966
Immediate suspension of the officers under investigation
Council-wide procedural reform in safeguarding escalation and PLO usage

⟡ 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.

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: The Archive Demands a Copy of Itself ⟡

⟡ “You Had Time to Ignore My Complaints. Now You Have 30 Days to Disclose Them.” ⟡
Formal Subject Access Request to Social Work England demanding all records related to complaints against Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 8 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/SAR-HORNAL-COMPLAINT-RECORDS
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-08_SWANK_SARRequest_SWE_HornalComplaintsAndDeliberations.pdf
Subject Access Request demanding full disclosure of Social Work England’s records concerning complaints filed by Polly Chromatic against Kirsty Hornal

I. What Happened

On 8 April 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to Social Work England (SWE)under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The request demands:

All internal documents, assessments, and decisions relating to complaints filed against Kirsty Hornal
All emails or correspondence where Polly is named or referenced
Full access to decision-making rationale, risk assessments, and refusal criteria
Disclosure of the mechanisms used to determine why her complaints were not escalated

The SAR was submitted following SWE’s ongoing failure to investigate well-documented professional misconduct, and serves as a pre-litigation evidence sweep for both Judicial Review and regulator complaint escalation.

II. What the Request Establishes

Regulatory opacity: SWE failed to provide procedural clarity regarding why Hornal’s misconduct was never investigated
Documentation disparity: The archive is full — but SWE’s files have been withheld
Data rights: Legal entitlement to know how the regulator discussed, dismissed, or delayed critical safeguarding concerns
Institutional contradiction: Transparency is policy — except when the social worker is protected
Power inversion: This SAR flips the dynamic — from subject to sovereign

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when regulators pretend not to see, you force them to read.
Because SWE can’t claim “insufficient grounds” while refusing to show their own grounds.
Because if they had time to ignore a year’s worth of documentation, they now have 30 days to account for that silence — in writing.

This SAR is not just an inquiry. It’s a jurisdictional demand.
And the archive will not wait politely.

IV. Violations (If Not Fulfilled)

UK GDPR, Articles 12 & 15 – right to access personal data and obtain confirmation of processing
Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – noncompliance with subject access obligations
Equality Act 2010, if refusal linked to disability status or complaint origin
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – right to informational privacy and family protection

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Social Work England gets to say “no case to answer” without showing what was asked.
We do not accept that silence is transparency.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation can be documented, and still dismissed, without scrutiny.

This is a records request.
It is also a countdown.
Day one has begun.

⟡ Chromatic v PLO: Rebuttal as Public Record ⟡

⟡ “They Cited Concern. I Cited Evidence. Let the Record Show Who Blinked First.” ⟡
Formal rebuttal to Westminster’s PLO letter, dismantling safeguarding claims point by point and exposing retaliatory motive

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLO-REBUTTAL-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Response_PLORebuttal_HornalBrownEscalation.pdf
Response to PLO letter issued by Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, asserting disability rights and addressing each safeguarding claim with precision

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal rebuttal to Westminster’s PLO pre-proceedings letter dated 14 April 2025. The original letter was signed by Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, despite:

No prior disclosure of a completed Child in Need outcome
Ongoing retaliation following police reports filed by Polly
Repeated, documented violations of her disability access rights

The PLO allegations — from educational concern to false claims of erratic behaviour — were systematically dismantled in this written reply, which also reaffirmed Polly’s legal position under the Equality Act 2010, Children Act 1989, and Human Rights Act 1998.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Escalation without closing documentation or transparent threshold rationale
Human impact: Severe deterioration in health from repeated verbal demands, trauma escalation, and harassment
Power dynamics: Safeguarding invoked not for safety — but in retaliation for lawful resistance
Institutional failure: Ignoring clear evidence and prior internal acknowledgements in order to justify surveillance
Unacceptable conduct: Recasting educational success and medical silence as risk indicators

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because every allegation in this PLO was addressed — with documents, video, and law.
Because the very same department that cited homeschooling as concern had praised it in writing.
Because sewer gas, asthma, and abuse history were not facts to be addressed — they were tools to be inverted.
Because the safeguarding logic wasn’t logic. It was leverage.

This post is not a rebuttal. It’s an archive of refusal — to be intimidated, pathologised, or erased.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 21, 27 – denial of communication accommodations; retaliatory safeguarding
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to promote well-being; misapplication of escalation
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – procedural unfairness; interference with family and private life
Social Work England Standards, 3.1, 5.1 – institutional harm; discriminatory process management

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that PLO letters can substitute for fact.
We do not accept that silence caused by medical need is “non-engagement.”
We do not accept that disability, once disclosed, can be used as pretext for escalation.

This wasn’t risk management.
It was reputation defense masquerading as child protection.
And now, it is timestamped — by the one who refused to play along.

⟡ Chromatic v RBKC & Westminster: A PLO in Retaliation’s Clothing ⟡

⟡ “A Year of No Risk — Followed by a PLO. That’s Not Safeguarding. That’s Strategy.” ⟡
Judicial Review pre-action outline challenging retaliatory PLO issued by Westminster and RBKC following police complaint and failure to disclose outcome

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WESTMINSTER/JR-PLO-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_PreAction_JR_PLORetaliation_KirstyHornal.pdf
Outline of legal challenge against RBKC and Westminster for unlawful safeguarding escalation, disability discrimination, and data protection breach

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic prepared a formal Judicial Review Pre-Action Letter Outline, instructing her solicitor to initiate proceedings against the Director of Children’s Services for RBKC and Westminster. The proposed claim challenges a PLO letter dated 14 April 2025, issued by Kirsty Hornal and approved by Sam Brown, despite:

No safeguarding concerns after a full year of investigation
No final report or explanation of any findings
A police report filed by the claimant weeks earlier regarding misconduct
Repeated disregard for disability accommodations

The escalation to PLO was framed as retaliatory, procedurally flawed, and incompatible with domestic and human rights law.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: PLO invoked without final assessment; data withheld; retaliatory timing
Human impact: Physical illness, psychiatric distress, deterioration in trust and stability
Power dynamics: Misuse of statutory authority to punish protected acts — especially police complaints
Institutional failure: Breakdown of communication, documentation, and proportionality
Unacceptable conduct: Conflation of compliance with submission; medical silence repackaged as risk

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a PLO without an outcome report is not legal process — it’s institutional gaslighting.
Because when you file a police report and receive a PLO letter weeks later, that’s not coincidence. It’s code red.
Because safeguarding is not supposed to function as reprisal.
And because this filing makes it clear: disability isn’t risk. It’s a right — and rights don’t expire when the council feels threatened.

This isn’t a PLO challenge. It’s a declaration of war on retaliatory bureaucracy.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 47 – escalation without lawful evidence or procedural integrity
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 21, 27, 149 – discrimination, failure to adjust, and retaliation for protected activity
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – interference with private and family life via unjustified statutory action
Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – unlawful withholding of outcome documents
Common Law Public Law Principles – breach of legitimate expectation and proportionality

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that filing a police report is grounds for safeguarding escalation.
We do not accept that silence is neglect when the silence is medical.
We do not accept that the absence of findings can be used as justification for further scrutiny.

This was not lawful child protection.
It was revenge policy in a PLO envelope.
And SWANK will litigate it line by line, citation by citation, archive by archive.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: When Later Meant Liability ⟡

⟡ “I Said I’d Reply Later. That Was Too Much Power for Them to Handle.” ⟡
A simple, lawful boundary: email reply deferred due to disability needs — acknowledged, logged, and later weaponised

Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DISABILITY-BOUNDARY-NOTICE
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_DisabilityBoundary_ReplyDeferredNotice.pdf
Brief email from Polly Chromatic asserting a written communication boundary — later used by WCC as alleged “non-engagement”

I. What Happened

On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an email to social worker Kirsty Hornal stating that she would reply to messages later, due to needing to manage other priorities. The tone was clear, courteous, and declarative — a basic act of digital pacing consistent with her documented communication-related disability.

Kirsty Hornal replied with a nonchalant “No problems!”

And yet — this exact type of boundary-setting would later be framed by the same department as non-engagement, resistance, or concern for lack of cooperation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Misuse of boundary-setting emails to later justify escalation or PLO
Human impact: Anxiety around harmless communication, increased disability strain
Power dynamics: State professionals holding silence or delay as evidence of guilt
Institutional failure: Misunderstanding or willful rejection of pacing as part of reasonable adjustment
Unacceptable conduct: Accepting disability terms in writing, then undermining them in process

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this was a perfect moment of clarity:
Polly said, “I will reply later.”
The social worker said, “No problems.”
And still — that space, that quiet, that breath — became dangerous.

Because institutions don’t need a refusal to punish you.
They only need a pause.

This wasn’t a conflict.
This was a documented deferral — retroactively recast as neglect.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate communication pacing; victimisation for lawful delay
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – surveillance and judgement of private communication behaviour
Social Work England Standards, 3.1, 5.1 – disregard for health-informed adjustments; harm through administrative pressure
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misuse of delay as safeguarding concern

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that “later” is a threat.
We do not accept that breath is defiance.
We do not accept that acknowledging a disability-based pacing need — only to punish it in policy — is anything but strategic malpractice.

This message said everything it needed to.
And now, SWANK has said the rest.

⟡ Chromatic v ER: When Silence Meant Suffering ⟡

⟡ “They Refused to See Him. He Couldn’t Even Speak.” ⟡
Email reporting ER neglect of a nonverbal asthmatic child — sent to Westminster officials and medical consultant

Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/NHS-ER-REFUSAL-KING
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_ERRefusal_KingRespiratoryCrisis.pdf
Real-time medical alert reporting hospital refusal to treat a breathless child — copied to Westminster Council, RBKC, and NHS staff

I. What Happened

On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an urgent email to Dr. Philip Reid and senior Westminster and RBKC officials, documenting that her son Kingdom was refused treatment at an emergency room while actively experiencing respiratory distress.

Despite being visibly ill and barely able to speak, Kingdom was turned away—mirroring what had previously happened to Heir during a separate A&E crisis. Polly explained that she was monitoring oxygen levels at home, administering prednisone based on prior NHS advice, and attempting to secure a follow-up with Dr. Reid due to the ER's repeated failure to respond to asthmatic emergencies with appropriate care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Hospital refusal to examine a child in respiratory crisis without valid reason
Human impact: Lingering respiratory symptoms, inability to speak, suffering left untreated
Power dynamics: ER staff treating a disabled mother’s visit as suspect rather than protective
Institutional failure: Westminster’s silence despite repeated alerts about ER neglect of vulnerable children
Unacceptable conduct: Treating paediatric asthma as parental exaggeration; forcing children to endure untreated episodes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a child unable to speak should not be refused emergency care.
Because Polly didn’t just report it once — she copied every official with jurisdiction.
Because the ER staff’s refusal to help didn’t just harm Kingdom — it triggered another cycle of surveillance against his mother.
Because when systemic medical neglect meets bureaucratic disinterest, documentation becomes the only safeguard.

This wasn’t just an ER refusal. It was a mirror: showing us how quickly institutions abandon breath — and then punish the one who speaks.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to protect and support children in health crises
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – discrimination based on parent’s disability and history of protected communication
NHS Constitution, Right to Treatment – denial of urgent care without triage
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3 & 8 – inhumane treatment and interference with family medical integrity

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that refusal to treat is the standard response to a breathless child.
We do not accept that oxygen levels excuse suffering.
We do not accept that medical neglect should be reframed as parental misconduct.

This wasn’t missed care.
It was withheld — by professionals more concerned with control than compassion.

And now, it is part of the record.

⟡ Chromatic v Westminster: When Silence Was a Strategy ⟡

⟡ “They Escalated to PLO, But Forgot to Answer the SAR.” ⟡
Ombudsman complaint documenting disability discrimination, procedural sabotage, and data protection breach by Westminster City Council

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/LGO-COMPLAINT-PLO-DISCRIMINATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_LGOComplaint_Westminster_DisabilitySARProceduralBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the LGSCO citing systemic failures by Westminster Children’s Services under the Equality Act and UK GDPR

I. What Happened

On 22 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a detailed complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, outlining four intersecting violations by Westminster City Council’s Children’s Services:

Disability discrimination: Written-only communication requests ignored despite medical certification, leading to physical harm
Procedural sabotage: No outcome report issued after a year of Child in Need assessments, then sudden escalation to PLO
Data protection breach: A Subject Access Request (SAR) submitted under UK GDPR was unlawfully delayed past deadline
Retaliation and opacity: Harassment complaints against social worker Kirsty Hornal were closed without written explanation

The document makes it clear: this wasn’t bureaucratic error. It was calculated obfuscation — designed to isolate, exhaust, and escalate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: No closure report for CIN process; unlawful PLO escalation; failure to respond to SAR
Human impact: Respiratory flare-ups, psychological deterioration, and intensified legal distress
Power dynamics: Council forcing escalation while denying the family access to evidence and due process
Institutional failure: Collapsing internal accountability paired with administrative retaliation
Unacceptable conduct: Using safeguarding pathways to punish lawful resistance, not protect children

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because SARs are not optional.
Because public law fairness is not a formality.
Because retaliating against a disabled mother for asserting her rights isn’t just wrong — it’s a pattern.
Because you can’t demand verbal compliance when the medical file says “no voice.”
And because when the council escalates without explaining the last escalation, it ceases to be protection — and becomes persecution.

This wasn’t negligence.
This was deliberate legal erosion, wrapped in child protection rhetoric.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to make adjustments and retaliatory conduct following protected acts
UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – unlawful failure to respond to SAR within the required time
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misapplication of safeguarding escalation without procedural closure
Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018) – failure to document, inform, or involve
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – denial of due process and unjustified interference with family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding frameworks can be weaponised to punish non-compliance.
We do not accept that access to personal data can be delayed to gain legal advantage.
We do not accept that omitting a case outcome is a clerical oversight.

This complaint is not a request. It is a jurisdictional reprimand — logged, timestamped, and filed for systemic review.

Cooperation Is Not a Performance. It’s a Right — And I Exercised It.

⟡ “Refusing Abuse Is Not Refusing to Cooperate” ⟡
A formal statement of participation, legal boundaries, and what it really means to engage — lawfully, strategically, and with proof.

Filed: 20 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-12
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-20_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOResponse_ClarifyingCooperation.pdf
Formal letter from Polly Chromatic to Kirsty Hornal rebutting any suggestion of “non-engagement.” The letter reaffirms written-only communication, clarifies lawful refusals, and asserts the parent’s ongoing cooperation — on legal, not coercive, terms.

I. What Happened

By 20 April 2025, Westminster had already escalated safeguarding processes in retaliation for complaint. Now, they were reframing that retaliation as a problem with parental cooperation. This letter shuts that narrative down — thoroughly, respectfully, and legally.

Polly Chromatic:

Reiterates written-only communication based on medical advice
Clarifies the basis for declining verbal conversations and invasive tests
Confirms past and current participation — in writing, with evidence
Warns that misrepresenting these actions would constitute procedural misconduct
Demands all correspondence and adjustments be included in Westminster’s internal record

It is a calm but firm declaration: non-verbal ≠ non-cooperative.

II. What the Letter Establishes

Disability adjustments are not barriers to cooperation — they are the lawful format of it
Refusing unlawful or unsafe procedures is not obstruction — it’s protection
Westminster’s prior contact, meetings, and ongoing emails confirm full engagement
The narrative of “non-engagement” is a deliberate distortion with legal consequences
Any omission of these facts in official records will be treated as evidence manipulation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This letter exists for one reason: because Westminster has shown it will twist compliance into resistance when it suits them. SWANK archived this file to ensure that when they claim the parent refused to cooperate, the truth — and the evidence — will already be on record.

SWANK filed this to:

Defend against the misuse of “non-cooperation” as a procedural weapon
Preemptively correct the record with written confirmation of engagement
Assert legal participation on grounds of disability rights and lawful boundary-setting

IV. Violations (If Ignored or Misrepresented)

Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 27 (adjustments and retaliation)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)
Social Work England Standards – Truthfulness in recordkeeping, respect for client rights
UK GDPR – Inaccurate or omitted data in official records
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding frameworks and harm through administrative dishonesty

V. SWANK’s Position

Refusing a test is not refusing to engage. Declining to speak is not silence. The law is not verbal. And compliance is not owed — especially not when coercion is dressed as concern.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Full correction of all Westminster records that refer to “non-cooperation”
Explicit inclusion of this letter in all internal assessments and review panels
Regulatory investigation if any officer continues to misstate the family’s position

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: A Regulator Without Teeth Is a Threat ⟡

⟡ “What Is Social Work England For, If Not This?” ⟡
Formal complaint to the Professional Standards Authority for SWE’s failure to investigate blatant misconduct, retaliation, and disability discrimination

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE-PSA/REGULATORY-FAILURE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Complaint_PSA_SWEFailure_HornalMisconduct.pdf
Submission to PSA requesting investigation into Social Work England’s inaction despite detailed misconduct reports against Kirsty Hornal

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA)concerning Social Work England’s failure to investigate multiple well-evidenced allegations of professional misconduct by Kirsty Hornal.

The submission followed nearly a year of SWE inaction in response to complaints documenting:

Retaliation after a safeguarding case collapsed without findings
Fabricated allegations in a formal PLO letter
Documented disability discrimination and refusal to implement accommodations
Misrepresentation of a child’s statement
Psychological harassment backed by statutory authority

Despite psychiatric and medical evidence, a full chronology, and multiple formal letters, SWE has refused to escalate the matter. Hornal remains in post, continuing to exert power over the family she harmed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Social Work England’s failure to investigate despite clear grounds under Fitness to Practise
Human impact: Sustained mental health harm, institutional retraumatisation, and unrelieved surveillance
Power dynamics: A regulator protecting the regulated — while the victim remains under scrutiny
Institutional failure: SWE’s silence transformed complicity into a policy position
Unacceptable conduct: Allowing a social worker to escalate retaliation after a police report without oversight

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a regulator ignores psychiatric records, police reports, PLO abuse, and medical documentation — it’s not negligence. It’s endorsement.
Because this wasn’t one complaint. It was an archive.
Because “not escalated under FTP” is no longer a procedural detail. It’s a euphemism for professional immunity.
Because this entry is about more than Hornal. It’s about the system that kept her in uniform.
And if the PSA doesn’t respond — the PHSO will.

IV. Violations

Professional Standards Authority Remit – failure to ensure regulatory bodies uphold public protection and fair process
Social Work England Statutory Duties, under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 – failure to act on risks to the public
Equality Act 2010, Section 27 – victimisation following protected disability disclosure
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – exposure to retaliatory interference with family life
Principles of Public Law – maladministration, procedural unfairness, and regulatory inertia

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Fitness to Practise is a decorative process.
We do not accept that a social worker who retaliates post-litigation is still fit for practice.
We do not accept that silence from a regulator is anything but permission.

SWANK considers this a matter of institutional protectionism — and will escalate, archive, and publish until action is taken.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: When Breathing Was Misread as Belligerence ⟡

⟡ “I Can’t Breathe, But You’re Offended I Don’t Like Your Tone?” ⟡
Formal communication to WCC cataloguing 16 clinical patterns of hostility triggered by social worker conduct during respiratory disability

Filed: 13 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/HOSTILITY-PATTERNS-WARNING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-13_SWANK_Email_Hornal_HostileConductCatalogue.pdf
An annotated list of hostile behaviors sent to Kirsty Hornal to document the relationship between social work aggression and medically triggered harm

I. What Happened

On 13 January 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a formal written message to Westminster Children’s Services, specifically addressing social worker Kirsty Hornal, to assert boundaries regarding hostile behavior.

Rather than engage in defensive back-and-forth, Polly submitted a taxonomical breakdown of hostility — listing 16 distinct behavioral categories ranging from verbal aggression and dismissiveness to sabotage, sarcasm, and refusal to communicate. Each was cross-referenced with its psychological impact, showing how such behaviors exacerbate asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and PTSD symptoms.

It wasn’t just an objection. It was a diagnostic framework — presented in pure composure, and mailed to the institution that caused it.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Continued verbal or tonal hostility despite disability-based written-only communication requests
Human impact: Breathing difficulty, vocal injury, panic symptoms, and post-traumatic activation
Power dynamics: The person with no voice is framed as aggressive — while the aggressors remain unnamed
Institutional failure: Refusal to understand trauma as physiological; refusal to recognise tone as violence
Unacceptable conduct: Penalising someone for resisting verbal engagement when verbal engagement is itself the harm

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asserting medical boundaries isn’t rudeness.
Because writing down the names of hostile behaviors doesn’t make you difficult — it makes you a record-keeper.
Because when institutions pretend they don’t know why someone can’t breathe, the archive will remind them:
You knew.
You were told.
You were catalogued.

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a classification.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – failure to implement reasonable adjustments, including verbal-exempt access
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3 & 8 – degrading treatment; psychological and physiological violation of bodily autonomy
Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 5.1 – failure to do no harm; failure to prevent distress
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Section 2 – emotional and respiratory health risks ignored by professionals

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that kindness must be earned through calmness when calmness is physically impossible.
We do not accept that “communication” means submission.
We do not accept that institutions can cause injury with a tone and then claim innocence with a shrug.

This wasn’t about hostility.
This was about health.
And it is now documented — with clinical precision.

⟡ Chromatic v NHS: Silence Misread as Crime ⟡

⟡ “You Can’t Claim I Was ‘Erratic’ If I Physically Can’t Speak.” ⟡
Email documenting hospital bullying, asthma-related discrimination, and intent to sue for institutional neglect

Filed: 24 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-NHS/HOSPITAL-ABUSE-DISPUTE
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-24_SWANK_Email_HospitalAbuse_LegalThreatAgainstNHS.pdf
Email to WCC officials and legal counsel outlining abuse in A&E settings and declaring intent to pursue legal action over repeated neglect

I. What Happened

On 24 November 2024, Polly Chromatic emailed Westminster social work leadership and her legal team in response to continued hospital bullying and misrepresentation during respiratory crises.

She highlighted that across multiple hospitals — including St Thomas’ and St Mary’s — staff blamed her for the conduct of others, dismissed her communication limitations, and categorised her as "erratic" despite clear evidence that she could not physically speak due to disability.

The message made one thing clear: the problem was not miscommunication — it was systemic contempt for asthma patients, particularly disabled mothers and their children.

Polly concluded her message with a legal warning: “I’m going to sue them. It’s child neglect.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Repeated denial of asthma treatment; misclassification of disability responses as behaviour
Human impact: Exacerbated respiratory symptoms, trauma to children, destabilised medical routines
Power dynamics: Disabled woman framed as “aggressive” or “erratic” for asserting need for basic medical care
Institutional failure: Failure to de-escalate, accommodate, or interpret documented respiratory limitations
Unacceptable conduct: Hospitals weaponising disbelief and making the patient responsible for clinical dysfunction

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “I can’t argue” is not hostility — it’s breath preservation.
Because accusing a non-verbal disabled mother of aggression is not just inaccurate — it’s abusive.
Because A&E services that confuse composure with defiance are not safe for anyone with chronic illness.
Because every time a mother with asthma has to email the hospital to correct their version of her silence, something is structurally wrong.

This wasn’t a breakdown in communication.
It was a refusal to recognise silence as legitimate.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 15 & 20 – discrimination arising from disability; failure to accommodate communication limitations
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to safeguard children's health during acute respiratory episodes
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 3 & 8 – degrading treatment; interference with family life and medical privacy
NHS Constitution, Right to Respect – right to be heard, believed, and treated without humiliation

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that medical disbelief is a diagnosis.
We do not accept that respiratory illness is treated as inconvenience.
We do not accept that child neglect can be redirected toward the mother when it originates from the institution.

This wasn’t mislabelled. It was misused.
And now, it is part of the archive — and the case law.

When the School Becomes the Threat: Safeguarding as Retaliation for Disability

⟡ “From Schoolyard to Statutory Harm: Drayton Park Escalates Disability into Risk” ⟡
A safeguarding referral made not to protect a child — but to silence a mother. The playground becomes a platform for institutional cruelty.

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/ISLINGTON/SCHOOL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_Email_DraytonPark_SafeguardingDisabilityComplaint.pdf
Formal complaint emailed to local authorities and education officials, detailing safeguarding misconduct and disability discrimination by Drayton Park Primary School (Islington LA) and associated professionals.

I. What Happened

On 22 April 2025, the claimant filed a written safeguarding complaint after Drayton Park Primary School, under the remit of Islington Local Authority, engaged in discriminatory practices that exacerbated medical harm and misused safeguarding frameworks in retaliation for lawful disability requests.

Despite clinical documentation confirming that both the parent and child suffer from severe eosinophilic asthma and other respiratory disabilities, school staff failed to accommodate their needs, dismissed medical communication, and initiated harmful safeguarding referrals rather than provide support. This email was cc’d to multiple council, legal, and medical contacts — forming a critical cross-borough evidentiary trail of systemic ableism disguised as care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Unlawful safeguarding escalation by school authorities in response to disability adjustments
Failure to accommodate written-only communication and clinical limitations
Misuse of child protection processes to suppress a parent’s lawful advocacy
Disregard for medical documentation and the treating physician’s oversight
Cross-agency procedural misconduct involving Islington and Westminster councils

III. Why SWANK Filed It

When a school weaponises safeguarding instead of implementing a care plan, that school becomes a risk in itself. This email was archived to document a broader institutional playbook: when disabled parents demand rights, the response is not compliance — it is retaliation.

SWANK filed this document to:

Establish the evidentiary chain connecting school-level negligence to local authority overreach
Show how disability becomes pathologised through safeguarding systems
Provide a record of written, timely, good-faith complaints that were ignored or punished

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 15 (discrimination arising from disability), Section 20 (failure to make reasonable adjustments)
Children Act 1989 – Abuse of safeguarding to target families with protected characteristics
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (right to private and family life)
SEND Code of Practice – Breach of statutory duties for supporting pupils with health conditions
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – Article 23 (children with disabilities), Article 3 (best interests of the child)

V. SWANK’s Position

What took place at Drayton Park is not “miscommunication.” It is a deliberate institutional act: dismissing medical warnings, ignoring clinical guidelines, and punishing disability visibility with safeguarding escalation. This case illustrates how school-based safeguarding channels have become a covert enforcement arm — targeting families who do not comply with ableist norms.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Immediate investigation by Islington’s SEN and safeguarding oversight teams
Public disclosure of school safeguarding protocols and escalation criteria
Apology and corrective action to prevent further institutional harm

⟡ Chromatic v A&E: When Breathlessness Was Called Behaviour ⟡

⟡ “We Can’t Argue If We Can’t Breathe.” ⟡
A&E misconduct report forwarded to Westminster after repeated refusal to treat immunocompromised children with respiratory illness

Filed: 23 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-NHS/NEGLECT-MISCONDUCT-AE
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-23_SWANK_Email_AandENeglect_ReportChildrenRespiratoryAbuse.pdf
Email sent to WCC and RBKC officials documenting repeated NHS failures to treat respiratory emergencies, with warnings of further escalation

I. What Happened

On 23 November 2024, Polly Chromatic emailed Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal, Director Sarah Newman, RBKC staff, legal representatives, and medical consultant Dr. Philip Reid, documenting a pattern of life-threatening neglect in London’s NHS A&E services.

In the message, Polly described how her children, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir, were repeatedly denied adequate asthma care, improperly assessed, and sent home untreated — despite clear symptoms of respiratory distress. Medical staff reportedly became defensive when questioned, failed to use basic diagnostic tools properly (e.g. misplacement of thermometers), and treated the family as suspect rather than unwell.

Rather than escalate within hospital premises, Polly administered prescribed medication at home, logged everything, and sent this dispatch to social services to pre-empt further safeguarding misuse.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: A&E refusal to follow asthma care protocols; improper temperature readings; failure to listen to lungs properly
Human impact: Delayed recovery, risk of respiratory crisis, psychological trauma from medical hostility
Power dynamics: Disabled mother blamed for child neglect while professionals ignore medical duties
Institutional failure: Ongoing NHS resistance to treating visibly ill patients; deflection of risk onto parent
Unacceptable conduct: Reversal of blame; framing respiratory protection as maternal misconduct

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the hospital staff weren’t just underperforming — they were actively hostile.
Because this wasn’t one bad night — it was a culture of antagonism toward visibly disabled families.
Because when a parent calmly administers prednisone at home to avoid another violent encounter with A&E, the institution has already failed.
Because Polly Chromatic should never have had to write this email.
And now that she did — we’re archiving it.

This document makes it clear: if Westminster continues to cite NHS authority as credible in its safeguarding frameworks, SWANK will cite this record — and demand structural accountability.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to meet the health needs of children with chronic illness
NHS Constitution, Patient Rights – right to safe, respectful, and effective care
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 3 & 8 – degrading treatment; interference with family and private life
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – failure to provide accessible, disability-informed care in emergency settings
Common Law Duty of Care – breach by NHS A&E personnel in paediatric asthma cases

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that A&E is a battleground.
We do not accept that families should leave sicker than they arrived.
We do not accept that safeguarding frameworks can ignore NHS negligence while punishing disabled parents for intervening.

This wasn’t parental hostility.
This was medical abandonment.
And SWANK will document it — line by line, symptom by symptom, protocol by protocol.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: When Kindness Masked Neglect ⟡

⟡ “Sympathy Without Action Is Neglect With a Smile.” ⟡
Formal complaint to the Ombudsman documenting passive abuse by Kirsty Hornal through inaction, delay, and selective compassion

Filed: 5 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/LGO-HORNAL-INACTION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-05_SWANK_LGOComplaint_KirstyHornal_PassiveNeglect.pdf
Ombudsman complaint citing systemic inaction and disability harm enabled by Kirsty Hornal’s failure to intervene despite awareness

I. What Happened

On 5 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, targeting the passive neglect of Kirsty Hornal, a social worker within Westminster Children’s Services.

Though Hornal communicated with superficial empathy, she failed to implement any substantive protection or enforce legally mandated disability accommodations. She acknowledged harm, promised follow-ups, referenced NHS colleagues — and did nothing.

This inaction took place while Polly and her children were recovering from sewer gas poisoning, battling immunocompromising conditions, and attempting to homeschool under harassment.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Refusal to enforce adjustments despite confirmed diagnosis and stated risk
Human impact: Panic attacks, respiratory deterioration, educational disruption, retraumatisation
Power dynamics: Institutional neglect hidden behind polite tone and performative concern
Institutional failure: Staff permitted to acknowledge harm without duty to stop it
Unacceptable conduct: Tolerating medical harm under the illusion of professionalism

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because kind emails mean nothing if the harm continues.
Because silence in policy clothing is still silence.
Because Kirsty Hornal did not need to escalate to be abusive — she only had to do nothing while harm accrued.
Because this is what systemic discrimination often looks like: not malice, but inertia.
Not denial, but neglect.
Not shouting — just letting it happen.

This was the formal act of naming what the institution packaged as “support”: chronic inaction, dressed as care.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to make or enforce reasonable adjustments
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to protect welfare through inaction
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – indirect violation of family life through unremedied harm
Ombudsman Standards, Duty of Service – failure to act on repeated, substantiated risk notifications
Social Work England Standards, 3.1, 5.1 – neglect of health needs, avoidable harm through omission

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept inaction as neutrality.
We do not accept performative kindness as compliance.
We do not accept that professionals may admit to harm — and still allow it.

This wasn’t miscommunication.
This was professional indifference.

This wasn’t benign neglect.
It was structured, delayed, and systemically enabled — and now, permanently documented.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: The Police Were Informed. The Council Was Not Amused. ⟡

⟡ “We Filed a Police Report. They Filed It Under ‘Customer Relations.’” ⟡
Email submitting formal police report against Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown — forwarded to council complaints teams for the record

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/POLICE-REPORT-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_PoliceReport_HornalBrown_RetaliationAbuse.pdf
Email forwarding police report against two senior social workers for retaliation and harassment, sent to both borough complaint desks

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services complaint inboxes. Attached was a police report naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated, coordinated acts of institutional retaliation, harassment, and discriminatory conduct.

The submission was forwarded with no introduction, no hedging, and no apology. The subject line said it all:
“Police Report for ~~Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown~~.”

It was not a request for action. It was a declaration of record.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Abuse of safeguarding process for retaliatory purposes
Human impact: Institutional intrusion, legal destabilisation, and emotional harm to children
Power dynamics: Social work used as a mechanism of silencing — backed by management hierarchy
Institutional failure: A system so accustomed to complaint that it routes police reports to customer service
Unacceptable conduct: Normalising surveillance, discrediting resistance, retaliating against legal redress

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because submitting a police report against two public servants should not feel like forwarding a broadband complaint.
Because the public must see what the state refuses to name: that retaliation is operational, not accidental.
Because the council’s inbox is not neutral. It is strategic.
Because when you file a police report and no one calls you back, the archive becomes your hotline.

SWANK documented this not to inform the public — but to outlive the silence that followed.

IV. Violations

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Sections 4A & 2 – harassment, alarm, and distress by public officials
Equality Act 2010, Sections 26 & 27 – harassment and victimisation linked to disability and protected activity
Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – discrimination, harm avoidance, and abuse of power
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misuse of safeguarding powers to intimidate rather than protect

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that customer service desks are neutral when violence wears a lanyard.
We do not accept that “retaliation” is too dramatic a word when the pattern fits the law.
We do not accept that institutional violence must be polite to be disqualifying.

This was not a miscommunication. This was strategy.
And SWANK has now timestamped it.

They Retaliated Under PLO — Now They Want a Home Visit for ‘Support’

⟡ “We’ve Retaliated Under PLO — Now Let’s Pretend It’s Just ‘Support’” ⟡
A legal dispute has been filed. The complaint has been logged. The retaliation is underway. But Westminster still wants to drop by — “just to help.”

Filed: 16 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CIN-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-16_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CINVisitRequest_PostPLORetaliation.pdf
Email from Sam Brown (Westminster) requesting an in-home Child in Need visit — despite ongoing legal proceedings, regulatory complaints, and a history of procedural abuse under the Public Law Outline.

I. What Happened

On 16 May 2025, Sam Brown, Deputy Service Manager at Westminster, sent a politely composed but structurally coercive email proposing a “Child in Need” (CIN) visit. The message:

Acknowledges the family's active legal case — but insists the CIN process is “separate”
Softens statutory pressure into language about “support” and “keeping in touch”
Offers a single-date appointment with no option for written-only substitution
Completely ignores prior communication boundaries and emotional harm
Treats safeguarding oversight as an unchallenged default, rather than a legally-contested threat

The result is a strategic shift in tone — from formal PLO retaliation to smiling statutory re-entry.

II. What the Document Establishes

Westminster is attempting to repackage PLO-level interference as CIN-level concern
Procedural overreach is now cloaked in language of “care”
Legal conflict is being consciously compartmentalised to justify continued presence
Disability adjustments (e.g. written-only communication) are being bypassed via format change
The same officials under regulatory complaint are still attempting contact

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not collaboration. It is administrative gaslighting. A statutory body accused of misconduct, currently under active complaint and judicial review, does not get to rebrand its interference as neutral “contact.” The letter reveals that Westminster is not standing down — they are changing uniform.

SWANK archived this document to:

Prove that post-PLO safeguarding activity continued under new names and justifications
Show how state actors use CIN to reinvade families under investigation
Expose the institutional refusal to honour trauma, legal boundaries, or reasonable accommodations

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 20, 27 (disability discrimination, failure to adjust, victimisation)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 6 (fair hearing), Article 14 (non-discrimination)
Children Act 1989 – Section 17 (misuse of CIN for surveillance, not support)
UNCRC – Article 23 (disabled family rights), Article 16 (protection from intrusion)
Social Work England Standards – Ethical boundary violations, disregard of active complaints

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s safeguarding tactics have evolved — but not improved. A coercive visit under CIN is no less harmful than one under PLO. If anything, it is more insidious: it arrives under the banner of care while continuing to deny lived experience, legal protection, and accountability.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

A moratorium on all in-person visits while legal and regulatory proceedings are active
Written-only communication reinstated and honoured
Investigation into CIN misuse as a backchannel for procedural retaliation

⟡ Chromatic v Met Police: Midnight Isn’t Reasonable Adjustment ⟡

⟡ “The Police Came at 11PM. I Was Asleep. They Came Anyway.” ⟡
Email exchange documenting police visit to disabled mother’s home at night — and her formal objection to future in-person attendance

Filed: 14 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/METROPOLITAN/POLICE-VISIT-DISPUTE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-14_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_StatementObjection_DisabilityBoundary.pdf
Email requesting statement handover to avoid in-person visits, citing disability, homeschooling, and surveillance safeguards

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Polly Chromatic received a response from Detective Sergeant George Thorpe of the Metropolitan Police, confirming that PC Kirsty Russell was the investigating officer for her report. The reply followed Polly’s 12 April 2025 message raising serious concerns about an unannounced late-night police visit to her home, despite:

Her medically documented communication limitations
Her four children being asleep during home education hours
The existence of a pre-written statement to avoid verbal engagement

Polly politely requested that the statement be relayed to the attending officers and reiterated that, unless absolutely necessary, she does not consent to unplanned police visits due to medical, safety, and trauma-related reasons.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Failure to respect disability-based written communication adjustment; late-night visit without notice
Human impact: Trauma exposure, sleep disruption, and heightened anxiety in a disabled household under harassment watch
Power dynamics: Attempted forced verbal interaction despite clear documented limits
Institutional failure: Ignoring previous documentation, disability status, and safeguarding boundaries
Unacceptable conduct: Treating written statements as insufficient solely because they do not offer real-time compliance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should be woken up at 11pm by the state.
Because there is no policy justification for showing up unannounced at the home of a disabled mother of four — when a statement was already provided.
Because the system will not acknowledge that written statements are not avoidance — they are accommodation.
Because this email is not about the event. It is about the expectation: that disabled people should still speak.

This archive entry is an act of quiet defiance — the kind that only appears after the doorbell rings too many times.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments; disability discrimination in public service
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful intrusion into private life, especially during family rest hours
Code of Ethics – College of Policing, Standards 1 & 4 – respect for rights, integrity, and public trust
Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) – failure to anticipate and accommodate known disability needs

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that officers can knock at 11PM with no explanation.
We do not accept that trauma, disability, or documented boundaries can be ignored for administrative convenience.
We do not accept that presence is proof of protection.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was state intrusion, veiled in politeness, carried out in silence, and now filed with fury.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: Fitness to Practise, Failure to Stop ⟡

⟡ “A Fitness to Practise Concern Shouldn’t Need a Trigger Warning.” ⟡
Submission to Social Work England citing sustained misconduct, refusal of accommodations, and statutory misuse by Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 1 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-TO-PRACTISE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-01_SWANK_SWEConcern_KirstyHornal_FTPViolation.pdf
Email to SWE submitting formal FTP concern against Kirsty Hornal for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation

I. What Happened

On 1 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal Fitness to Practise concern to Social Work England, naming Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services as a practitioner engaged in unethical conduct. The message cited:

Retaliatory escalation of safeguarding after legal filings
Failure to respect medically confirmed communication adjustments
Repeated contact attempts via inaccessible formats
Harassment through procedural pressure and fabricated urgency

The submission was sent directly to SWE and copied to Hornal herself — a direct act of jurisdictional assertion from a disabled parent subject to state interference.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Circumvention of lawful disability adjustments; baseless safeguarding escalation
Human impact: Respiratory strain, PTSD triggers, and threat-induced instability for the entire family
Power dynamics: Social worker bypassing medical documentation to force coercive compliance
Institutional failure: No internal redress pathway; escalation treated as default response to resistance
Unacceptable conduct: Defining protected behaviour (e.g. email-only requests, legal complaints) as neglectful or hostile

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint was the baseline — and it should have been enough.
Because a Fitness to Practise process that requires multiple filings is already an indictment of the profession.
Because Kirsty Hornal was notified of this concern in real time — and chose to continue her conduct.
Because institutional violence often wears a badge of procedure — and this submission tore it off.

This post marks the beginning of a formal timeline: when a disabled mother sent the email that turned misconduct into record.

IV. Violations

Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – respect, access, honesty, protection from harm
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate; retaliatory treatment for protected acts
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – neglect of child welfare to enforce parental compliance
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 & 14 – disability-based interference in private and family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be used to punish legal defiance.
We do not accept that “duty” overrides medical reality.
We do not accept that social workers can redefine resistance as risk.

This wasn’t just a complaint. It was a diagnosis — of professional decay, system rot, and personal vendetta masquerading as policy.

SWANK does not wait for institutional review. We publish our own.

⟡ Chromatic v Children’s Services: When Retaliation Replaced Care ⟡

⟡ “Retaliation is Not a Service. Discrimination is Not a Strategy.” ⟡
Formal multi-agency complaint submitted to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services for systemic failure, disability abuse, and retaliation

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/SYSTEMIC-FAILURE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliationSystemicFailings.pdf
Complaint addressed to both boroughs outlining institutional retaliation, disability neglect, and safeguarding weaponisation

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a joint complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services. The email, copied to Dr. Philip Reid and social worker Kirsty Hornal, attached a comprehensive record of medical, legal, and evidentiary failures by multiple professionals. The complaint identified a pattern of retaliation following:

Protected legal activity
Disability-related communication requests
Efforts to assert child rights and prevent medical harm

The documents submitted included NHS correspondence, PLO challenges, and social worker reports — laying bare the pattern of coordinated refusal to accommodate, respond, or de-escalate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Ignoring written-only communication needs; retaliating against legal action; failure to apply child welfare principles
Human impact: Medical regression, psychological harm, loss of educational access, fear of home invasion
Power dynamics: Social work roles repurposed as surveillance and compliance enforcement
Institutional failure: Total collapse of accountability, checks, or even basic communication standards
Unacceptable conduct: Targeting a disabled mother and her children under the pretext of care

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints should not be met with escalation.
Because safeguarding cannot be invoked against the very families it fails to safeguard.
Because retaliation is not an “internal matter” — it’s a jurisdictional breach.
Because Polly Chromatic made this clear: the pattern is no longer anecdotal — it’s administrative culture.

This entry was not written in anger. It was written in architectural grief.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, 27 – failure to adjust, harassment by refusal, victimisation by escalation
Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk frameworks; neglect of actual welfare needs
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – obstruction of due process; invasion of family privacy
Professional Conduct Codes – neglect of duties under SWE and local authority guidance

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t failure. It was structure.
We do not accept social work as a tool of punishment.
We do not accept medical vulnerability as an invitation for institutional punishment.
We do not accept safeguarding that treats parents as threats and records as weapons.

SWANK archives this complaint as a civil record of modern municipal abuse — documented with clarity, filed with jurisdictional precision.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: When Procedure Became Punishment ⟡

⟡ “We Raised a Concern. They Called It Non-Cooperation.” ⟡
Formal complaint to Social Work England citing disability discrimination, cultural erasure, and retaliatory safeguarding misuse

Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ETHICS-FAILURE-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_SWEComplaint_Westminster_DiscriminationRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to SWE naming social workers for procedural breaches, racial insensitivity, and disability discrimination under PLO

I. What Happened

On 19 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to Social Work England against Westminster Children’s Services, naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated failures in ethical conduct, professional standards, and legal obligations. The complaint outlines four core issues:

Non-disclosure of key assessment documents being used to justify PLO proceedings
Refusal to accommodate a written-only communication adjustment for medical reasons
Racial and cultural disregard, including the exclusion of the children’s Haitian father
The use of safeguarding escalation as retaliation for asserting legal rights

This submission followed months of ignored access needs, withheld reports, and surveillance-style safeguarding under the guise of concern.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Failure to disclose evidence under PLO; sidelining a co-parent; ignoring written-only accommodations
Human impact: Repeated trauma exposure, medical destabilisation, and cultural erasure
Power dynamics: Disguising retaliation as policy; framing advocacy as aggression
Institutional failure: Systemic disregard for mixed-heritage families and disability rights
Unacceptable conduct: Threatening escalation when parents assert lawful concerns

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint named it plainly: “If I speak up, they escalate.”
Because when racial bias, disability erasure, and threat-as-response converge — that’s not poor practice. That’s coercive administration.
Because safeguarding is not supposed to mean: comply, or we call court.
And because the refusal to provide the assessment in question speaks louder than the assessment ever could.

This archive entry is not a grievance — it’s a record of pattern. The conduct wasn’t accidental. It was embedded.

IV. Violations

Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 – dignity, access, honesty, cultural responsiveness, avoiding harm
Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of escalation powers; failure to promote welfare
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, & 27 – failure to accommodate, racial insensitivity, retaliatory behaviour
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – procedural fairness, right to family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that refusing to accommodate a disability is minor.
We do not accept that failing to include a non-English-speaking father is oversight.
We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be wielded like threats.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was escalation-as-discipline.
This was white governance over a mixed-heritage household.
And now, it is documented.

⟡ Chromatic v PLO: When Escalation Was the Only Argument Left ⟡

⟡ “If You’re Going to Escalate, At Least Explain Why.” ⟡
Email to Hornal and senior officials demanding justification for PLO referral amid medical crisis and lawful action

Filed: 21 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLO-ESCALATION-CHALLENGE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-21_SWANK_Email_PLOReferral_Hornal_RetaliationQuery.pdf
Email raising formal objections to unexplained PLO escalation by Kirsty Hornal, questioning procedural lawfulness and intent

I. What Happened

On 21 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a detailed challenge email to Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal, copying senior staff across Westminster, RBKC, NHS, and the Metropolitan Police. The email demanded an account of why PLO proceedings had been initiated following:

Her submission of legal claims and subject access requests
Ongoing medical crisis and disability documentation
Repeated requests for written-only communication

The escalation to PLO was made without new evidence, and in direct contradiction of prior agreements, medical facts, and safeguarding logic.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: PLO proceedings initiated without documented harm or updated justification
Human impact: Institutional pressure on a disabled parent during illness and litigation; retraumatisation of children
Power dynamics: Use of statutory escalation as a method of silencing and destabilising legal redress
Institutional failure: No evidence-based framework; no transparency; no lawful threshold applied
Unacceptable conduct: Treating a mother’s legal action as grounds for intervention escalation

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there was no safeguarding risk — only safeguarding retaliation.
Because when officials are copied into an email asking “Why was this done?” and none of them respond, it’s a statement in itself.
Because this email showed the courage to name it directly: the PLO escalation was a political act, not a child protection one.

SWANK documented this as a moment of clarity: when a mother asked the question the system hoped she was too sick to ask.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 47 – misuse of statutory thresholds for personal or retaliatory motive
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – refusal of reasonable adjustments; victimisation after protected acts
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – denial of due process; unlawful interference with family life
Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – discriminatory practice and abuse of professional position

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that legal action invites scrutiny.
We do not accept that procedural escalation can occur in the absence of risk.
We do not accept that disability and self-advocacy are grounds for suspicion.

This PLO was not an oversight. It was a response — to litigation, to resistance, to truth.

And now it is part of the archive.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: Access Denied at the Threshold of Escalation ⟡

⟡ “I Proposed an Alternative. They Preferred Escalation.” ⟡
Formal request to modify PLO process in light of disability — ignored without cause

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLO-ALTERNATIVE-DISREGARDED
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_Email_PLOAlternative_DisabilityIgnored.pdf
Email proposing written PLO accommodations due to disability; sent to Hornal, Newman, and NHS consultant

I. What Happened

On 16 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an email to social worker Kirsty Hornal (copied to NHS consultant Dr. Philip Reid and Director Sarah Newman), formally requesting a written alternative to an upcoming PLO meeting due to her documented disabilities.

The message requested a legally compliant, access-adjusted alternative format in accordance with NHS-confirmed communication accommodations. No lawful reason was ever provided for the refusal to implement the requested adjustment. Instead, escalation proceeded — in person, unmodified, and in direct contradiction of medical advice.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Refusal to implement medical accommodations in a safeguarding context
Human impact: Exacerbation of respiratory and psychological disability symptoms; increased trauma
Power dynamics: Using forced verbal meetings as leverage against written-only communication requests
Institutional failure: Failure to coordinate between NHS and local authority professionals on access needs
Unacceptable conduct: Treating medically supported disability adjustments as optional

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no disabled parent should have to beg for an email option during legal proceedings.
Because when a medical consultant is copied in and the local authority still ignores the accommodation, that’s not miscommunication — it’s targeted rejection.
Because the refusal to alter the PLO process was not about safety. It was about control.

This archive entry confirms what Westminster social work continues to demonstrate: access is denied not due to limitation — but because accommodation threatens authority.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments and accessible services
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – violation of family and personal dignity under state scrutiny
Social Work England Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – dignity, transparency, anti-discrimination
NHS Care Act Coordination Obligations – lack of integrated planning between health and social care services

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding meetings are exempt from the law.
We do not accept that disability documentation is discretionary.
We do not accept that escalation is the only response to medical clarity.

SWANK considers this one of the clearest illustrations of state refusal to accommodate — even when the NHS is watching.
This wasn’t failure. This was refusal.
And now, it is archived.