Disability Isn’t Defiance — But That’s How She Treated It

---

⟡ “She Ignored a Psychiatric Report — Then Called Me a Risk” ⟡
A formal complaint to Social Work England documenting how Kirsty Hornal violated disability law, safeguarding standards, and basic decency — in that order.

Filed: 4 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-04_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Regulatory complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal for disability-based retaliation, failure to accommodate written-only contact, and procedural abuse during the safeguarding process.

---

I. What Happened

After submitting medical documentation confirming the necessity of written-only communication, Polly Chromatic was subjected to a series of procedural threats and surveillance-style contact attempts by Kirsty Hornal — a registered social worker with Westminster Children’s Services.

This complaint, submitted to Social Work England, documents how Kirsty:

• Refused to respect written-only communication despite clear clinical evidence

• Mischaracterised the communication boundary as hostility or non-engagement

• Escalated to PLO procedures immediately following lawful complaint activity

• Disregarded a psychiatric report from Dr. Irfan Rafiq (dated 26 November 2024)

• Directly contributed to the emotional harm of a disabled parent and her children

The complaint provides a factual timeline, legal context, and emotional impact — in language Kirsty could have understood, had she cared to read.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability accommodations were both documented and denied

• PLO escalation occurred as retaliation, not protection

• Statutory frameworks were used as a compliance weapon, not safeguarding

• Repeated contact attempts constituted psychological harm

• Kirsty Hornal was not acting in ignorance — she was acting in defiance

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm caused by incompetence is tragic — but harm caused by deliberate dismissal of medical need is professional misconduct. SWANK archived this complaint because it proves a single social worker, presented with the truth, chose to act against it.

SWANK filed this to:

• Begin the process of professional accountability for disability-based safeguarding retaliation

• Demonstrate the direct causal link between ignored adjustments and emotional harm

• Establish legal precedent that procedural escalation following complaint is retaliatory conduct

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair hearing), Article 8 (private/family life)

• Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding to pursue non-safeguarding objectives

• Social Work England Standards – Failure to uphold dignity, respect, truthfulness, and lawfulness

• UNCRPD & UNCRC – Denial of disabled parent support and harm to family stability

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a communication failure. It was a professional decision. A registered social worker received medical evidence and chose to interpret it as defiance. That is not safeguarding. That is retaliation — and now it’s regulation.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

• Immediate SWE review of Kirsty Hornal’s professional fitness to practise

• Investigation into her conduct across all CIN, PLO, and CP cases from 2023–2025

• Temporary suspension from direct work with disabled families until resolved

---

⟡ 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.