“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

Hornal v Chromatic (On Envy Institutionalised)


On Jealousy Masquerading as Safeguarding ⟡

Filed: 11 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/HORNAL/ADD-JEALOUSY
Download PDF: 2025-09-11_Addendum_Hornal_Jealousy.pdf
Summary: Records how Ms. Hornal’s jealousy displaced welfare analysis and corrupted safeguarding practice.

I. What Happened

• Reports authored by Ms. Kirsty Hornal substituted personal commentary and insinuation for child-centred analysis.
• Allegations of “misconduct” and “risk” lacked evidential basis, serving instead as proxies for hostility.
• Welfare considerations—health, education, asthma, and stability—were displaced by narratives of rivalry.
• The pattern of intervention escalated in response to oversight, audit demands, and lawful publication.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Procedural breach: safeguarding powers redirected by personal animus.
• Evidentiary value: demonstrates how bias masquerades as professional duty.
• Academic support: Bromley’s Family Law affirms cooperation cannot be coerced under s.20 Children Act 1989.
• Human Rights authority: Amos confirms Article 8 requires proportionality and reflection.
• Case law: Re B (2013), Re S (2002), and Johansen v Norway (1996) confirm that removal without anxious scrutiny and reflective process is unlawful.
• Structural pattern: retaliation follows oversight; jealousy fuels escalation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To ensure the archive records that “safeguarding” here was envy in professional costume.
• To demonstrate how statutory powers, when corrupted by jealousy, produce unlawful interference.
• To preserve the evidence that retaliation was not child-driven but rivalry-driven.
• To connect Hornal’s conduct to the wider retaliatory sequence logged across SWANK files.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989 — welfare principle subverted by personal hostility.
• Equality Act 2010 — discriminatory stereotyping of a disabled American mother.
• ECHR, Articles 8 & 14 — interference with family life lacking necessity and reflecting discriminatory treatment.
• Safeguarding duty — per statutory guidance, requires impartiality and evidence; breached by envy-driven interventions.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. This is jealousy elevated into statutory paperwork.

• We do not accept hostility reframed as child protection.
• We reject envy institutionalised as safeguarding.
• We will continue to log every distortion until reflection replaces projection.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.

⚖️ 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.