Chromatic v Westminster (PC-139): On the Collapse of Professional Ethics in Real Time

---

⟡ FORMAL REFERRAL – KIRSTY HORNAL (SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND) ⟡

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-17_Core_PC-139_SocialWorkEngland_ComplaintKirstyHornal.pdf
Summary: Formal Fitness-to-Practise referral filed with Social Work England (SWE) concerning Kirsty Hornal, Senior Practitioner, Westminster City Council. The complaint exposes her procedural retaliation, discriminatory escalation, and violation of statutory equality adjustments—marking the beginning of Westminster’s recorded ethical implosion.

---

I. What Happened

On 7 June 2025, social worker Kirsty Hornal issued a written Supervision Order threat, immediately following a lawful audit and disability adjustment demand from SWANK London Ltd.

This correspondence—unprovoked, unprofessional, and unhinged—was followed by:

• Unannounced home visits under the guise of “concern”;

• Refusal to comply with written-only communication, despite confirmed medical requirement;

• Failure to respond to statutory oversight correspondence; and

• Escalation of safeguarding action without legal basis or due process.

The pattern is unmistakable: a procedural retaliation sequence disguised as welfare practice.

---

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Ms. Hornal’s safeguarding activity functioned as reprisal, not protection.
• That her conduct violates multiple SWE Professional Standards (honesty, proportionality, respect, anti-discrimination).
• That safeguarding mechanisms were inverted into a tool of retaliation.
• That this misconduct occurred during active audit and judicial proceedings, evidencing contempt for both law and ethics.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the evidentiary moment when safeguarding ceased to safeguard.
• To assert that written-only accommodations, once breached, transform care into coercion.
• To ensure SWE cannot plead ignorance of its own member’s retaliatory behaviour.
• Because documentation is defence — and velvet indignation is public service.

---

IV. Statutory & Professional Framework

Professional Standards (SWE 2021)
1.4 – Act with honesty and integrity.
2.1 – Communicate respectfully and appropriately.
3.4 – Maintain clear and professional boundaries.
5.2 – Challenge and report poor practice.

Statutory & Legal Duties
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15 & 20 – discrimination and failure to provide reasonable adjustments.
• Children Act 1989, s.44 – misuse of emergency safeguarding powers.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – refusal to lawfully disclose information.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – interference with private and family life.

Academic Authority
• Bromley Family Law – condemns misuse of safeguarding as procedural violence.
• Amos Human Rights Law – establishes that retaliation under the guise of protection violates Articles 6 and 8 ECHR.

---

V. Timeline Summary

22 May – Disability adjustment request issued.
24 May – Legal demand served.
6 June – Audit SWL/AUD-1 filed.
7 June – Supervision threat received.
8–16 June – Retaliatory surveillance and data withholding.
17 June – Judicial Review amended citing procedural breach.

Each act follows the classic retaliation arc: document → punish → silence → repeat.

---

VI. SWANK’s Position

“When the law asks for transparency and the practitioner answers with a threat, ethics have already left the building.”

SWANK London Ltd. affirms that Ms. Hornal’s conduct represents an institutional psychosis: retaliation institutionalised as reflex.
Her correspondence is not merely unprofessional; it is jurisprudentially valuable — a live specimen of administrative misconduct preserved for dissection.

This referral transforms her procedural tantrum into permanent evidence.

---

⟡ 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 exposure.

---

⚖️ 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.