⟡ “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.
⟡ 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.