⟡ We No Longer Speak to Kirsty or Sam ⟡
A procedural silence is now in effect. Communication has been archived, not continued.
Filed: 27 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/INSTITUTION/0627-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-27_SWANK_CorrespondenceTermination_HornalBrown.pdf
1-line summary: SWANK London Ltd declares formal termination of all direct contact with social workers Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown due to procedural escalation and institutional misconduct.
I. What Happened
For over a year, the Applicant was subject to persistent, unfiltered, and often hostile communication from Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown of Westminster Children’s Services. Emails were issued without legal authority, bypassed formal disability adjustments, and frequently ignored requests for written-only correspondence. These individuals escalated emotional harm while evading scrutiny.
Despite repeated formal complaints, audit notifications, criminal referral submissions, and documentation efforts, both employees continued to position themselves as gatekeepers of contact and narrative control.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Repeated breach of jurisdictional clarity
Use of correspondence to provoke, pressure, or confuse
Failure to adhere to written-only accommodations
Procedural overreach in direct communication post-filing
Bypassing formal legal and consular channels once active
III. Why SWANK Logged It
This is no longer a conversation.
It is an archive.
Having engaged, rebutted, recorded, filed, and publicly posted over 500 communications, SWANK London Ltd now formally closes the channel to these individuals.
The audit has shifted. The venue is now judicial.
This is not a courtesy — it is a legal repositioning.
They are no longer entitled to answers, access, or reaction.
Their names remain — but only in evidence.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – failure to act in the child’s best interests
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20–21 – failure to accommodate written communication
Article 6 ECHR – ongoing interference in fair and accessible legal process
Common law duty of procedural fairness
V. SWANK’s Position
Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown are no longer direct recipients of communication.
They will not be copied, warned, or addressed.
They are archived.
All future material will be routed through the Family Court, Westminster Legal Services, and/or regulatory bodies. Their behaviour remains under formal audit, their misconduct bundled, and their relevance entirely circumstantial.
The era of direct address is over. We now file. We do not reply.
⟡ 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.