“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

“Just checking in” — How Institutional Messaging Co-opts Care to Silence Parents


⟡ Kirsty Hornal’s Grandparent Bypass Attempt ⟡

"Procedural breach in plain text messages. This was not informal. This was unlawful."

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/JR-ADDENDUM-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Addendum_JR_KirstyHornal_BypassContactIncident.pdf
Filed as: Addendum to Judicial Review Claim – Unauthorised contact incident via grandmother and father

I. What Happened

While multiple complaints and court filings were live, Kirsty Hornal contacted the children's grandmother and father on 25 June 2025. She initiated informal conversations directly with them — in violation of previously asserted legal boundaries, disability accommodations, and consular involvement.

This occurred after public record evidence had already instructed all communication to go solely through the Claimant and the Court.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Active bypass attempt while legal protections were in force

  • Deliberate exclusion of disabled parent (Claimant)

  • Misuse of family relationships during live legal review

  • Breach of transparency and safeguarding process

  • Misconduct by a named professional under multiple complaints

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This was not a casual message. It was a live attempt to reassert institutional control by misrepresenting authority and undermining litigation. The coercive subtext (“daddy and nana are coming to get you sweets”) shows emotional manipulation disguised as concern.

This isn't family outreach — it’s narrative engineering under litigation.

IV. Violations

  • Disability discrimination

  • Family court access obstruction

  • Judicial Review interference

  • Social Work England Code of Conduct

  • Safeguarding procedural breach

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ This wasn’t family support. It was legal erasure through text message.
⟡ This isn’t safeguarding. It’s retaliatory spectacle with the veneer of concern.
⟡ We see it. We log it. We won't let it disappear.

⟡ 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.

Documented Obsessions