⟡ “I Said It Could Kill Me. She Compared It to Her Husband’s Cold.” ⟡
A safeguarding email sent to Westminster, copied to a GP, warning of life-threatening asthma and the need for medical respect. The social worker replied by describing her husband’s winter congestion. This is not safeguarding. It’s clinical minimisation in Outlook format.
Filed: 15 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MED-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-15_SWANK_Email_Westminster_KirstyHornal_AsthmaMinimised_GPDisclosure.pdf
Correspondence from Polly Chromatic to Westminster Children’s Services disclosing dangerous respiratory disability and requesting reasonable adjustment. Kirsty Hornal responds with a dismissive anecdote and redirects accountability. Dr Reid is copied in.
I. What Happened
On 15 January 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a written warning:
“When I speak, I cough. When I cough, I stop breathing.”
“This isn’t psychological. It’s clinical. It’s dangerous.”
“The doctor said if I go on like this, I could die.”
The reply from WCC social worker Kirsty Hornal?
“My husband has been coughing all winter too.”
Instead of action, she offered anecdote.
Instead of concern, she offered comparison.
Instead of accessibility, she asked how the disabled parent could “help [her] communicate this” — back to her own team.
The GP was copied. No correction followed.
II. What the Email Establishes
That Westminster received explicit, clinically supported warnings
That those warnings were minimised, deflected, and repackaged as anecdotal
That written-only communication was necessary, not optional — and still ignored
That Kirsty Hornal lacked not only training, but empathy and procedural seriousness
That this moment marks a medical gaslight in bureaucratic prose
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because life-threatening illness isn’t a mood. It’s not up for comparison. And it doesn’t resolve because someone else’s spouse had a sniffle.
SWANK archived this email to:
Prove that Westminster received a clinical warning and failed to escalate
Show that medical documentation was met with casual disbelief
Record a safeguarding officer’s reliance on storytelling over science
Cement a legal paper trail for failure to accommodate, protect, or respond
This isn’t failure to act. It’s procedural disinterest in respiratory survival.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Failure to accommodate known medical need
• Section 27: Retaliation through verbal insistence post-disclosure
• Section 149: Public authority failing to eliminate discriminationChildren Act 1989 – Indirect harm caused to family unit through procedural disbelief
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 3: Inhuman treatment via disregard of medical risk
• Article 8: Right to bodily and family integritySocial Work England Standards –
• Failure to respond to evidence
• Inappropriate minimisation of disability
• Poor judgement and disrespect for known medical harm
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to compare asthma to the common cold when the medical file says you might be the trigger. You don’t get to ask the disabled person to help you explain the risk you’re creating. And you don’t get to call this safeguarding. Not anymore.
SWANK London Ltd. recognises this as a bureaucratic confession of disbelief, filed directly to the GP, and now preserved for regulation, litigation, and publication.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 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.