“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

She Can’t Moderate Her Conduct — But She Claimed She Could Moderate Exams.


⟡ She Said She Was a GCSE Examiner. Ofqual Said... Absolutely Not. ⟡
When a social worker falsifies her credentials and forgets that the mother she’s threatening keeps receipts.

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFQUAL/COMPLAINT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_Ofqual_Kirsty_GCSEDisqualificationComplaint.pdf
A formal complaint to Ofqual regarding social worker Kirsty Hornal’s dubious claim to hold examining authority over children’s GCSE outcomes — despite having no such accreditation.

I. What Happened

In the midst of a safeguarding escalation, Kirsty Hornal casually implied that she was a GCSE examiner and could therefore judge educational progress.
She was not listed with any examining body.
She was not qualified.
And she wasn’t joking.
The mother did what Westminster never does: she checked. Then she filed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Kirsty Hornal misrepresented her professional qualifications

  • That the misrepresentation was made in an official safeguarding context

  • That the claim could intimidate or mislead parents regarding academic oversight

  • That Ofqual has no record of her as an examiner or moderator

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because safeguarding is not a stage for delusions of grandeur.
Because false academic authority is a legal problem — not a personality quirk.
And because if parents must prove credentials to homeschool, then social workers must prove theirs to critique it.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Misrepresentation of Professional Qualifications

  • Potential Undue Influence on Parental Decision-Making

  • Breach of Ethical Standards in Safeguarding Dialogue

  • Abuse of Power via False Academic Authority

  • Institutional Failure to Vet Claims Made by Staff

V. SWANK’s Position

If you are not qualified to grade GCSEs, you are not qualified to weaponise them.
This wasn’t a harmless flex. It was a professional falsehood with legal consequences.
Kirsty claimed a title she didn’t earn — and now it’s been reported to the people who actually decide grades.
Let’s see who gets marked down.

⟡ 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