“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

In re Fixation: The Crown v. Hornal’s Compulsion


⟡ On Obsession Masquerading as Safeguarding ⟡

Filed: 8 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ADDENDUM-OBSESSION
Download PDF: 2025-09-08_Addendum_KirstysObsession.pdf
Summary: Westminster’s case rests on one social worker’s fixation, institutionalised into record and persecution.

I. What Happened

The proceedings against the Director and her four U.S. citizen children did not originate in verified evidence but in the personal obsession of social worker Kirsty Hornal. Her fixation coloured reports, shaped hearings, and drove disproportionate restrictions. Rather than investigate lawfully and impartially, Westminster adopted her personal narrative as institutional record.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • Projection, not protection: Allegations rested on Hornal’s preoccupation, not the children’s lived reality.

  • Institutional capture: Westminster Children’s Services adopted her fixation wholesale.

  • Disproportionate harm: Four children subjected to removals, restrictions, and surveillance born of fixation rather than necessity.

  • Bias and Discrimination: Allegations mirrored stereotypes historically projected onto white mothers with Black partners or mixed-heritage children — gendered and racialised prejudice as procedure.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

  • Legal relevance: Fixation substituted for evidence, tainting statutory duties.

  • Pattern recognition: Mirrors earlier addenda on Misogyny, Imagination, and Cultural Reductionism.

  • Historical preservation: Records obsession as misconduct codified into authority.

  • Doctrinal force: Establishes “Obsession as Safeguarding” as a Mirror Court principle.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

  • Children Act 1989, ss.1 & 47 – welfare principle and investigative duties ignored.

  • Equality Act 2010, s.149 – Public Sector Equality Duty breached; reliance on stereotypes.

  • Social Work England Professional Standards – obligation to base assessments on evidence violated.

  • ECHR, Articles 6, 8, 14 – fair trial, family life, and non-discrimination compromised.

  • UNCRC, Articles 2 & 30 – discrimination and identity rights of children undermined.

  • Case Law:

    • Re H and R (1996) AC 563 – suspicion cannot replace evidence.

    • Re L (2007) 1 FLR 2050 – threshold for removal must be proven.

    • Re B-S (2013) EWCA Civ 1146 – removal must be proportionate and evidence-based.

    • Re G (2003) EWCA Civ 489 – fairness requires accurate representation.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding.
This is fixation enthroned as authority.

SWANK does not accept obsession in place of evidence.
SWANK rejects projection as lawful foundation.
SWANK records Hornal’s compulsion as the true origin of Westminster’s case — persecution institutionalised.

When safeguarding collapses into fixation, it ceases to be protection and becomes persecution.

⟡ 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.

⚖️ 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.