“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

This Is the Document They’ll Pretend They Never Received.


⟡ “I Called the Police. I Named the Social Worker. I Filed It as a Crime.” ⟡
A formal police report submitted against Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services for coercive behaviour, ableist harassment, and the weaponisation of safeguarding against a disabled parent. Not safeguarding. Not support. Now officially misconduct — logged as criminal.

Filed: 15 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/KH-CRIM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-15_SWANK_Report_MetPolice_KirstyHornal_DisabilityAbuse_CoerciveConduct.pdf
A police complaint submitted to the Metropolitan Police under reference number BCA-10622-25-0101-IR, documenting coercion, disability discrimination, and prolonged abuse of power by Westminster officer Kirsty Hornal. Criminal complaint lodged. Support requested. Evidence confirmed.

I. What Happened

On 15 February 2025, Polly Chromatic stopped submitting letters to the council and started filing reports with the police.

The complaint detailed:

  • Years of procedural harassment framed as “safeguarding”

  • Medical diagnoses including eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD

  • A social worker repeatedly ignoring lawful boundaries and clinical evidence

  • Coercion via visit attempts, pressure to speak despite disability, and escalation after complaint

  • Refusal of reasonable adjustment

  • Emotional trauma, home disruption, and fear of targeted retaliation

The report was clear. The suspect was named. The safeguarding fiction was reclassified as abuse.

II. What the Report Establishes

  • That Westminster’s conduct moved beyond misconduct — into criminal liability

  • That verbal disability was exploited as a pretext for escalation

  • That contact persisted after legal withdrawal of consent

  • That the parent was forced to act not as a participant — but as a whistleblower

  • That the Metropolitan Police received the evidence, the history, and the suspect’s name — all in writing

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a safeguarding officer is accused of endangering the person they were assigned to support — and that person is disabled — it’s not oversight. It’s state-backed oppression. And when the council ignores it, the archive doesn’t.

SWANK filed this because:

  • It’s a landmark moment in the procedural collapse of WCC safeguarding

  • It shows that internal remedies were exhausted — and formal complaint was criminally escalated

  • It marks the transition from policy failure to potential prosecution

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Refusal of adjustment
    • Section 26: Harassment
    • Section 27: Victimisation after complaint
    • Section 149: Public sector equality duty breached

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Coercive contact after lawful refusal

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 3: Degrading treatment
    • Article 8: Home and family life invasion
    • Article 14: Discrimination via state process

  • Children Act 1989 – Procedural weaponisation causing emotional harm to family

  • Social Work England Standards – Now submitted to police for further investigation

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to call it safeguarding when your presence causes trauma, triggers symptoms, and violates medical boundaries. You don’t get to call it concern when the parent files a police report with your name on it. And you don’t get to call it “misunderstanding” when the allegations fit multiple statutes and a criminal code.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this file as the procedural tipping point — when disability discrimination, harassment, and administrative cruelty moved into the jurisdiction of the criminal law.

⟡ 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