“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

The Social Worker Cried, Then Called a Lawyer — And You’re Still Calling It Child Protection?


⟡ She Cried. She Panicked. She Threatened a Disabled Parent. And She Still Has a Case. ⟡
A safeguarding officer who can’t regulate her emotions should not be supervising anyone else’s.

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_EmotionalUnfitnessReferral.pdf
A formal referral raising concerns about Kirsty Hornal’s psychological unsuitability for child welfare duties, based on erratic conduct during statutory procedures.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal entered the PLO process with visible emotional instability:
Crying in meetings. Making threats. Sending coercive emails to a disabled mother — while disregarding the mother’s medical exemption from verbal communication.
This document formally outlines the concern: that Ms. Hornal’s personal conduct is so emotionally volatile it compromises her professional capacity.
It is not just about policy now. It is about psychological fitness for authority.

II. What the Referral Establishes

  • That Kirsty Hornal displayed unregulated emotional behaviour during sensitive safeguarding matters

  • That she used personal distress as a rationale for escalating intervention

  • That her actions jeopardised the safety and legal rights of a medically exempt parent

  • That her continued involvement creates reputational risk for Westminster and harm for service users

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because children’s welfare should not depend on whether the caseworker is having a good day.
Because a social worker crying mid-procedure is not a symbol of care — it’s a sign of collapse.
Because what starts as emotional instability becomes institutional liability.
And because if the public is watching, they deserve to know who’s running the case.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Emotional Misconduct in a Safeguarding Role

  • Retaliatory Contact with Medically Exempt Parent

  • Breach of Objectivity and Procedural Impartiality

  • Abuse of Power Under Psychological Duress

  • Safeguarding Misuse Escalated by Personal Emotion

V. SWANK’s Position

No child should be placed at the mercy of a professional who cannot manage her own distress.
No parent should be coerced by someone using mental instability as a policy instrument.
And no institution should be allowed to pretend this is normal.
This is not just about Kirsty.
It is about every single person who let her keep the case.

⟡ 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