⟡ “She Was Nice — and She Did Nothing.” ⟡
The kindest neglect is still neglect. Especially when it comes in email form.
Filed: 4 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/COMPLAINT-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-04_SWANK_SWEComplaint_KirstyHornal_DisabilityInaction_EmotionalHarm.pdf
This is the formal complaint to Social Work England about Kirsty Hornal — not for aggression, but for empathy without action. Polly Chromatic’s health was collapsing, her rights were known, and her accessibility needs were repeatedly affirmed — but never enforced. The result: procedural decay disguised as gentle concern.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic disclosed her legal and medical status.
She asked for written-only contact.
She explained that unannounced visits caused trauma, panic, and medical deterioration.
Kirsty Hornal agreed — and did nothing.
She said she would contact Dr. Philip Reid.
She didn’t.
She acknowledged the sewer gas exposure and respiratory crisis.
She let others keep coming.
Nice emails. Zero protection.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Kirsty acknowledged Eosinophilic Asthma, Muscle Tension Dysphonia, and written-only adjustments
That despite awareness, she allowed verbal pressure, visits, and distress to continue
That medical evidence, safety risks, and retraumatisation were dismissed by inaction
That no attempt was made to support Polly’s legal rights or safeguard her and her disabled children
That passivity replaced protection, even as the crisis escalated
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because being "sympathetic" while people suffer isn't professional — it’s negligent.
Because it’s easier to ignore a fire when you’re holding a teacup.
Because good intentions don’t count when harm is systemic and preventable.
And because Polly Chromatic isn’t collecting compliments — she’s collecting evidence.
IV. Violations Identified
Standard 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 – Failure to uphold social justice, inclusion, and protection of rights
Standard 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 – Inadequate follow-through despite acknowledged trust
Standard 3.1, 3.3, 3.9, 3.13 – Lack of action in a known medical and safeguarding risk context
Standard 5.1, 5.5 – Continued emotional harm through unchecked and discriminatory practice
Standard 6.3 – Failure to support the complaint process or escalate concerns
V. SWANK’s Position
Polly Chromatic didn’t ask for empathy.
She asked for intervention.
Kirsty gave the first and avoided the second.
This wasn’t malice — but it wasn’t neutral either.
It was harm, dressed nicely.
And now it’s dressed in PDF.
⟡ 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.