Chromatic v Hornal (PC-145): On the Retaliatory Reflex Disguised as Safeguarding

---

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – KIRSTY HORNAL ⟡

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-RETALIATION-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-17_Core_PC-145_SWE_KirstyHornal-ProceduralRetaliation_Complaint.pdf
Summary: A regulatory complaint submitted to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, senior practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services, for retaliatory misuse of safeguarding powers, procedural harassment, and ethical collapse in direct response to lawful audit demands and disability disclosures.

---

I. What Happened

On 29 May 2025, Ms Hornal sent an unsolicited email threatening to initiate legal proceedings for a Supervision Orderagainst four U.S.-citizen children—no new referral, no precipitating event, no emergency, merely timing: days after the parent filed audit and misconduct documentation.

Between 24 May and 9 June 2025, Ms Hornal:
• ignored written-only medical communication requirements;
• arranged unscheduled visits after jurisdictional withdrawal;
• issued intimidating correspondence under the guise of procedural formality;
• and attempted to re-establish control through the pretence of safeguarding review.

The conduct amounted to administrative retaliation, executed in a social-work costume.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That retaliation replaced assessment as operational motive.
• That procedural theatre was substituted for lawful process.
• That Westminster officials weaponised “concern” to silence oversight.
• That Ms Hornal’s actions breached multiple SWE Professional Standards: integrity, transparency, proportionality, and respect for disability accommodation.
• That safeguarding, when decoupled from evidence, becomes coercion.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve primary evidence of malice by email—the bureaucratic artform of modern retaliation.
• To convert complaint into jurisdictional documentation, ensuring SWE cannot later plead ignorance.
• To demonstrate that retaliation follows exposure, not neglect.
• Because the line between “support” and “surveillance” collapses once power feels embarrassed.

---

IV. Legal and Ethical Framework

Domestic Law
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – repeated intimidating contact.
• Children Act 1989, s.44 – misuse of emergency powers.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15 & 20 – disability discrimination and failure of adjustment.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – unlawful processing of personal data.

Professional Standards (SWE 2021)
• 1.4 – act with honesty and integrity.
• 2.1 – communicate appropriately and respectfully.
• 3.4 – maintain professional boundaries.
• 5.2 – challenge and report poor practice.

Human Rights Law
• ECHR Articles 3, 6, 8 & 14 – protection from degrading treatment, right to fair process, respect for private life, freedom from discrimination.

---

V. The Pattern of Conduct

1. Audit Demand → Threatening Email (29 May 2025).

2. Cease-Contact Notice → Unscheduled Visit (17 June 2025).

3. Disability Disclosure → Escalation to PLO.

4. Formal Complaint → Institutional Silence.

This is not coincidence; it is choreography.

---

VI. SWANK’s Position

“When governance feels criticised, it retaliates; when it retaliates, it confesses.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies Ms Hornal’s behaviour as procedural retaliation masquerading as protection.
Her emails, visits, and threats are not administrative errors but intentional acts of control following exposure of misconduct.
The record stands: the children were safe, the audit was lawful, and the retaliation was instant.

The complaint now exists in the only jurisdiction Westminster cannot edit — the SWANK Evidentiary Archive.

---

⟡ 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 retaliation deserves record.
And arrogance deserves publication.

---

⚖️ 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.