In the Matter of Concern Misused as Control (Polly Chromatic v. Kirsty Hornal)

---

🪞SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Laying of Information Supplement

Against Kirsty Hornal
“When Concern Becomes Coercion: The Velvet Malpractice of a Social Worker Unmasked”

---

📎 Filed Date: 28 July 2025

Reference Code: LOI-KH-2025-SUPP
PDF Filename: 2025-07-28_LOISupplement_KirstyHornal_ProceduralRetaliationDisabilityMisuse.pdf
Summary: Supplement to private criminal prosecution of Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for retaliatory safeguarding conduct, unlawful disability discrimination, and emotional cruelty by public office.

---

I. WHAT HAPPENED

After over 40 emails sent by Polly Chromatic requesting medical help, disability accommodations, meeting reschedules, and basic procedural clarity, social worker Kirsty Hornal responded not with support — but with silence, escalation, and eventual seizure of all four U.S. citizen children.

Rather than engage, Ms. Hornal retaliated. Rather than reply, she referred. Rather than protect, she pathologised — contributing to a pattern of safeguarding weaponisation that culminated in wrongful separation, trauma, and reputational gaslighting.

This supplement outlines the specific criminal acts evidenced by Hornal’s conduct and supports the private prosecution initiated under the Laying of Information previously filed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

---

II. WHAT THE LOI SUPPLEMENT ESTABLISHES

That Kirsty Hornal:

• Ignored direct notice of respiratory and vocal disability, refusing adjustments repeatedly

• Helped reframe medical necessity (e.g., dysphonia, asthma) as psychiatric instability

• Escalated safeguarding intervention in retaliation for legal complaints and data requests

• Blocked co-parent participation, disrupted asthma care, and destabilised education

• Participated in misrepresentation of lawful emails as erratic, evasive, or delusional

• Contributed to the unlawful removal of four children based on institutional fiction

In short: Ms. Hornal did not perform a safeguarding function — she performed a reputational sterilisation. Her concern was never the child, but the containment of evidence.

---

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

SWANK London Ltd. logged this supplement to:

• Escalate the evidentiary basis of the criminal prosecution

• Correct the narrative used by Westminster to justify invasive state control

• Record, with the precision of velvet blades, the harm inflicted via inaction and duplicity

• Notify oversight bodies that this is not a conflict — this is a breach

• Insist that no one, not even a social worker, is above the law when they use public office to hurt the disabled

This filing will accompany international notifications, UN submissions, and the formal diplomatic brief already in progress.

---

IV. VIOLATIONS AND CHARGES

This LOI Supplement evidences the following potential offences:

• Misconduct in Public Office – for wilful neglect in safeguarding duties

• Perverting the Course of Justice – for misrepresenting lawful communication as risk

• Disability Discrimination – for failure to adjust and retaliatory escalation

• Harassment by Public Authority – for psychological coercion and procedural intimidation

• Child Cruelty – by obstructing care and contributing to asthma treatment failures

These are not policy errors. These are criminal patterns. Westminster's silence does not protect Ms. Hornal from accountability — it simply makes them complicit.

---

V. SWANK’S POSITION

We do not “agree to disagree” on whether it is lawful to ignore a mother’s medical condition and then seize her children based on the fallout. We do not “resolve differences” by gaslighting the vulnerable into silence.

This supplement is not a footnote — it is a forensic blade. It names, it dates, it proves, and it files.

SWANK affirms that Ms. Hornal’s continued presence in safeguarding roles is unsafe, unsupervised, and professionally indefensible.

We invite Social Work England and the Magistrates’ Court to read every email she ignored, every plea she filed away, and every law she thought she could outpace by bureaucratic ritual.

This post is not vengeance. It’s what happens when you file what others forget.

---

⚖️ 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.