“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v Hornal (Safeguarding Misconduct: Criminal Escalation and Procedural Rebuttal)


⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

The Republic vs. Miss Hornal

Filed under the Velvet Authority of SWANK London Ltd.

Filed Date: 22 July 2025

Reference Code: SWANK-CFN-0723

PDF Filename: 2025-07-22_SWANK_Addendum_CriminalFilingNotice_KirstyHornal.pdf

1-Line Summary: Private prosecution filed against Kirsty Hornal for harassment, misconduct, and reputational coercion.

I. What Happened

On 22 July 2025, I, Polly Chromatic — Litigant in Person and Director of SWANK London Ltd. — filed a private criminal prosecution against Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The prosecution was accepted, logged, and stamped, with full bundle delivery confirming legal standing.

The charges include:
• Misconduct in Public Office
• Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997)
• Perverting the Course of Justice
• Wilful Neglect (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)

Miss Hornal now stands as a criminal defendant, even while continuing to meddle in safeguarding matters concerning four U.S. citizen children she unlawfully removed.

II. What the Filing Establishes

This prosecution does not represent anger. It represents procedure.
It does not represent retaliation. It represents remedy.
It does not represent volume. It represents recorded silence broken by formal consequence.

For over a year, Miss Hornal:

  • Obstructed lawful communication,

  • Lied in written correspondence,

  • Manipulated contact,

  • Undermined medical evidence,

  • And attempted to frame lawful resistance as disorder.

She has now been confronted not with emotion — but with indictment.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because institutional misconduct is not resolved through polite pleading.
Because accusations of “non-engagement” were made against a disabled mother complying in writing.
Because safeguarding was weaponised — and language was policed more heavily than conduct.
Because reputational coercion became a tool of family separation.

IV. Violations

  • Article 6 & 8 ECHR

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  • Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination)

  • Children and Young Persons Act 1933

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 9, 12

  • Common Law: Misconduct in Public Office

V. SWANK’s Position

Let this post serve as formal notice that we do not respond to injustice with emotion — we respond with evidence, formatting, and prosecution.
Let it be known that every accusation made against me will be returned through the correct legal channel — even if I have to create it myself.
And let it be remembered that what was done to my children will never be forgotten.
Not because I said it — but because I filed it.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.