A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 (PC-143): On Surveillance Disguised as Duty


⟡ PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT – KIRSTY HORNAL ⟡

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-MISCONDUCT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-17_Core_PC-143_SWE_KirstyHornal-ProceduralMisconduct_Complaint.pdf
Summary: A formal complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services, documenting the misuse of safeguarding authority, physical and electronic surveillance, and psychological intimidation of minors under the false banner of “care.”

I. What Happened

On 15 June 2025, an unidentified man in a helmet appeared at the family’s door carrying a grey plastic-wrapped parcel.
He knocked, called out “Hello?”, and—without consent or identification—opened the private mail chute and looked into the home.
No delivery occurred.
No agency was named.
No purpose was declared.

All four children were present.
All four were frightened.

This took place after Westminster had been ordered to cease contact following jurisdictional withdrawal.
The visit bore every hallmark of surveillance disguised as delivery: choreography, timing, and plausible deniability.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• That Westminster conducted or condoned unlawful contact under the guise of welfare.
• That physical surveillance constitutes a safeguarding breach, not a safeguarding act.
• That the intrusion was timed to coincide with pending audit filings—retaliation, not oversight.
• That the act meets the threshold for harassment under both civil and criminal law.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve visual evidence of intimidation after official withdrawal of consent.
• To record the continuity between administrative ego and procedural misconduct.
• To assert that surveillance without warrant is not “concern”—it is institutional voyeurism.
• Because documentation is defence, and publication is deterrent.

IV. Violations & Authorities

• Children Act 1989 — emotional harm via unlawful contact.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — repeated unwanted communication.
• Equality Act 2010 — procedural intimidation against a disabled parent.
• ECHR Article 8 — breach of private and family life.
• UK GDPR — non-consensual visual data capture.
• SWE Professional Standards (2021) — breaches of honesty, integrity, and boundary maintenance.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Safeguarding is not surveillance.
Concern does not peek through letterboxes.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that Ms Hornal’s conduct transformed social work into stagecraft—a pantomime of power for an audience of one: herself.
The incident is not a procedural misstep but a deliberate act of intimidation executed under colour of authority.
It will be cited in every subsequent filing as Exhibit A in the Collapse of Professional Integrity.

⟡ 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 velvet contempt, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And misconduct deserves immortality.

⚖️ 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.