⟡ 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.

---

⟡ 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.