⟡ SWANK Regulatory Dispatch ⟡
“We Filed to Protect the Record, Not the Practitioner”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_SWEReferral_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityMisuse.pdf
I. The Referral Was Not Emotional. It Was Evidentiary.
On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. delivered a formal referral to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal, Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services.
The purpose?
To record conduct so profoundly misaligned with law, ethics, and dignity that no self-respecting archive could omit it.
On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal composed an email which declared Westminster’s intention to “apply to court for a supervision order.” The problem?
There was no risk.
There was no meeting.
There was no legal threshold.
And it arrived in the context of active litigation and disability-based communication adjustments — all deliberately ignored.
This was not a safeguarding decision.
It was a professional tantrum dressed in statutory costume.
II. The Standards She Violated — And Why They Matter
We are not interested in polite reformulations of power abuse.
We are interested in consequences.
Ms Hornal’s actions breach the following Social Work England Code of Ethics:
1.6 – Failing to respect documented adjustments
1.9 – Misusing professional power
2.2 – Collapsing professional boundaries into personal retaliation
5.4 – Failing to raise concerns when harm is enacted through process
Her correspondence did not safeguard.
It destabilised, discriminated, and deliberately weaponised ambiguity.
III. The Institutional Style of Threat
This is not a rogue act. It is a style.
A recognisable state aesthetic:
➤ vague legalism
➤ denial of intent
➤ undermining of procedural safeguards
➤ and always, a tone of pastel professionalism to disarm the charge
But SWANK is not disarmed.
We file, we index, and we expose the choreography.
“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
— She thought it was a brush-off. We filed it as Exhibit B.
IV. SWANK’s Position
Regulators exist not to polish misconduct but to excise it.
This referral does not seek re-education. It seeks removal.
Ms Hornal’s conduct demonstrates a professional who no longer serves the function she is paid to perform:
Safeguarding life, not threatening it.
We are not aggrieved. We are archiving.
And this record now lives forever — beyond HR, beyond FOIA evasion, and certainly beyond the reach of polite deletion.
⟡ 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.