“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

I Didn’t Escalate. I Filed.


⟡ “She Called It Safeguarding. I Called Social Work England.” ⟡
A formal complaint submitted to Social Work England by Polly Chromatic, citing Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for professional misconduct, disability discrimination, and safeguarding harm. The complaint includes clinical documentation, statutory references, and an offer of Google Drive evidence. No emotion. Just evidence. No shouting. Just removal proceedings.

Filed: April 2024
Reference: SWANK/SWE/REG-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-24_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_DisabilityDiscrimination_MisconductSafeguarding.pdf
Complaint submitted to Social Work England detailing violations of the Equality Act 2010, SWE Code of Ethics, and Children Act 1989. Names Kirsty Hornal as the central actor in a pattern of procedural discrimination, medical harm, and educational interference. Offers full supporting evidence. Filed professionally. Read like a tribunal.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to Social Work England. It included:

  • A clear clinical record:
    • Eosinophilic asthma
    • Muscle dysphonia
    • Psychiatric trauma from institutional harassment

  • A legal and ethical breakdown of what was violated:
    • SWE Standards 3.1, 3.4, 5.1, 6.2, and 6.4
    • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, and 27
    • Safeguarding interference with educational access

  • Factual examples:
    • Medical notes from Dr Rafiq and Dr Jose
    • Alleged misrepresentations to court about schooling
    • Misuse of CP procedures while ignoring parental boundaries

  • A statement of calm:

    “I would like to refer her for misconduct and institutional discrimination.”

No pleading.
No outrage.
Just the full record.
Ready for revocation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That disability and medical history were disclosed in writing

  • That the social worker proceeded in ways that escalated risk rather than reduced it

  • That no meaningful accommodations were made despite notice

  • That child harm occurred as a result of safeguarding intrusion

  • That a national regulator was formally activated with full evidence access

This isn’t a dispute.
It’s a professional indictment.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because silence isn’t compliance. Because safeguards are not safe when they’re used to escalate trauma. And because a regulator can only pretend not to see if no one sends the document. This one? They received it. With sources.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It’s your first formal regulatory body complaint against a named individual

  • It confirms that legal and medical documentation were merged

  • It shows you took the correct steps while the professionals took none

  • It becomes the reference point for every escalation from here

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Adjustment refusal
    • Section 26: Procedural harassment
    • Section 27: Retaliation for disability boundaries

  • Social Work England Code –
    • 3.1: Professional judgement compromised
    • 3.4: Poor communication / procedural opacity
    • 5.1: Breach of equality and inclusion
    • 6.2: Failure to maintain trust
    • 6.4: Harm to child and parent

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Section 17 & 47: Use of interventions that destabilised family support

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to call it care when it causes collapse. You don’t get to say you didn’t know when the doctor was copied in. And you don’t get to hide behind a lanyard when the regulator already has your name in a PDF.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a regulatory submission for professional misconduct, grounded in statute and supported by archive.

⟡ 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.