⟡ “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.
⟡ 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.