“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Email Threat of Supervision Order – Procedural Retaliation by Kirsty Hornal (WCC) | 31 May 2025


📮 Dispatch: Supervision by Threat

Subject: Kirsty Hornal’s Email of 31 May 2025
Filed Under: Procedural Retaliation, Email Harassment, Disability Discrimination

🕯 Summary:

On 31 May 2025, Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services issued a strikingly unprofessional communication declaring that Westminster Council was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

Not via legal service.
Not via formal case proceedings.
But via email. Casual. Unsanctioned. And profoundly coercive.

🎭 This Was Not Safeguarding. This Was Threat Theatre.

1. Retaliation, Thinly Veiled

At the time of this email, the recipient — Director of SWANK London Ltd. — had a live N1 claim against Westminster City Council and affiliated public bodies.

Hornal’s statement appears surgically timed to:

  • Intimidate the claimant during active legal action

  • Punish refusal to submit to informal CIN procedures

  • Preempt judicial or regulatory scrutiny by manufacturing a pseudo-crisis

This is not child protection. It is a procedural counter-attack.

2. Procedural Misconduct by Omission

A lawful application for a supervision order must be preceded by:

  • Multi-agency safeguarding discussions

  • Escalation through the Public Law Outline (PLO)

  • Clear, evidence-based risk thresholds

Ms Hornal bypassed all of this.
There was no lawful trigger.
Only retaliation — typed, sent, and CC’d.

3. Disability Discrimination (Weaponised)

The recipient has a documented written-only communication policy, grounded in medical evidence of:

  • Eosinophilic asthma

  • Muscle tension dysphonia

  • PTSD linked to state harassment

This email violated that adjustment, knowing it would destabilise the recipient.

To do so in the name of “child welfare” is a grotesque inversion of duty.

4. Breach of Legal and Professional Standards

The act violates multiple frameworks simultaneously:

  • Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding pathways

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability adjustment ignored

  • Social Work England (SWE) Code of Ethics – Abuse of power

  • LGSCO Maladministration Standards – Procedural unfairness, lack of proportionality

5. A Documented Pattern

This is not an isolated episode.

Similar escalations have occurred precisely when:

  • Legal filings were made

  • Complaints were submitted

  • Medical boundaries were asserted

The evidence points to a systemic pattern of retaliatory safeguarding, well-documented in SWANK’s legal and police records.

📎 Concluding Position:

This is not “liaison.”
This is not “support.”
This is targeted coercion masquerading as child protection — emailed, unfiltered, and procedurally rotten.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy


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.

Documented Obsessions