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-144): On Surveillance, Theatre, and the Misuse of Concern as a Weapon


⟡ EXPANDED COMPLAINT – KIRSTY HORNAL: PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT ⟡

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-MISCONDUCT-EXPANDED
Download PDF: 2025-06-17_Core_PC-144_SWE_KirstyHornal-ProceduralMisconduct_ComplaintExpanded.pdf
Summary: An expanded evidentiary complaint filed with Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, Senior Practitioner, Westminster Children’s Services — cataloguing multiple instances of procedural abuse, boundary collapse, and unlawful surveillance masked as welfare practice.

I. What Happened

Between 15 May and 17 June 2025, Westminster’s safeguarding unit—under Ms. Hornal’s supervision—performed a sequence of acts that redefined harassment as policy:

  1. 15 June 2025: An unannounced male visitor in a helmet approached the family home with a “grey package,” peered through the private mail chute, and departed without identification. Surveillance disguised as delivery.

  2. 29 May 2025: Ms. Hornal emailed a formal Supervision Order Threat — four children named, no triggering event cited. A bureaucratic performance staged in lieu of justification.

  3. 11 June 2025: A PLO letter followed the filing of SWANK’s audit demand, confirming retaliation as procedural instinct rather than legal necessity.

Each act occurred not in response to safeguarding need, but as reaction to oversight, confirming Westminster’s collapse from protective body to defensive regime.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Ms. Hornal orchestrated or permitted unlawful contact after jurisdictional withdrawal.
• That safeguarding rhetoric was deployed as a cover for surveillance and emotional intimidation.
• That her department failed to observe the Children Act 1989’s proportionality test, rendering their actions unlawful.
• That Westminster’s behaviour was consistent with a pattern of retaliatory administration documented across preceding audits.
• That, in effect, “concern” was rebranded coercion — weaponised empathy, operationalised fear.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To demonstrate the evolution of procedural misconduct from isolated failure to sustained campaign.
• To create an evidentiary map linking harassment, data misuse, and safeguarding theatre.
• To compel Social Work England to confront the reality that ethical collapse is now professional standard.
• Because the record outlasts the regulator.

IV. Applicable Standards & Breaches

Professional Standards – Social Work England (2021)
1.1 – act honestly and with integrity.
2.1 – communicate appropriately and respectfully.
3.4 – maintain professional boundaries.
5.2 – challenge and report poor practice.

Legal Framework
• Children Act 1989 – misuse of safeguarding powers and emotional harm.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15 & 20 – disability discrimination and failure to accommodate.
• ECHR Article 8 – interference with private and family life.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – repeated, intimidating contact.
• UK GDPR – attempted non-consensual data capture via physical surveillance.

Academic Authorities
• Bromley Family Law – condemns fabrication of risk as procedural abuse.
• Amos Human Rights Law – identifies state retaliation as institutionalised rights violation.

V. The Evidentiary Components

  1. Video Evidence: “Surveillance Disguised as Delivery” (SWANK Archive Reference SWANK/WCC/INTIMIDATION-ENTRY-01).

  2. Email Evidence: “Supervision Order Threat” (SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-03).

  3. Jurisdictional Retaliation Filing: (SWANK/WCC/RETAL-02).

  4. Medical Chronology: Dr. José – Eosinophilic Asthma Letter, 1 August 2024, confirming chronic illness ignored by Westminster’s safeguarding officers.

Together, these form a closed evidentiary circuit: complaint → retaliation → documentation → escalation → archive.

VI. SWANK’s Position

“When governance fears accountability, it performs surveillance instead of service.”

SWANK London Ltd. asserts that Ms. Hornal’s conduct represents an archetype of 21st-century misconduct: the psychological colonisation of the disabled parent via paperwork, panic, and performance.
Her “Supervision Threat” was not protection — it was punctuation masquerading as power.
Her silence after exposure is not professionalism — it is confession.

The complaint remains live before Social Work England, but its outcome is already historical: SWANK has recorded what Westminster tried to erase.

⟡ 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 misconduct deserves immortalisation.

⚖️ 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.