“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
Showing posts with label Criminal Referral. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Referral. Show all posts

Retaliation Is Not a Safeguarding Strategy — It’s a Crime



⟡ Criminal Referral Filed Against Westminster Officials ⟡
“Complicity is not administrative – it is criminal.”

Filed: 21 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CRIMINAL-01
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-06-21_SWANK_CriminalReferral_Hornal_Newman_Brown_ComplicityAndRetaliation.pdf
A formal criminal referral to the Metropolitan Police, naming Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, and Sarah Newman for coordinated misconduct, retaliatory safeguarding abuse, and rights violations against a disabled U.S. family.


I. What Happened
After over a year of escalations, Westminster officials Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, and Sarah Newman coordinated unlawful safeguarding actions in response to lawful public documentation, all while knowingly targeting a disabled mother and four disabled U.S. children. These actions included covert monitoring, harassment, refusal of adjustments, and attempted supervisory coercion following public complaints and legal filings.


II. Why SWANK Filed It
Because disability isn’t a trigger.
Because lawful publication isn’t a provocation.
Because safeguarding misuse is not a strategy — it’s a criminal act when used to punish speech.
Because Westminster thought “institutional culture” would protect them. It won’t.


III. Violations Cited

  • Equality Act 2010 (S.15, S.20, S.27)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 8, 10, 14)

  • Data Protection Act 2018 (Unlawful surveillance and misuse of personal data)

  • Malfeasance in Public Office

  • Perverting the Course of Justice


IV. What the Document Establishes

  • That retaliation has replaced safeguarding.

  • That disability is being wielded as justification for oppression, not protection.

  • That Westminster officials are not simply incompetent — they are complicit.

  • That public documentation is a defensive act, not an incitement.

  • That silence will not be performed.


V. SWANK’s Position
We are not waiting for institutions to regulate themselves.
We are documenting. We are escalating.
We are naming names.
And we are not going away.


⟡ 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.

A Formal Statement from the Family of Chromatic

๐Ÿ‘‘ SWANK PRESS DISPATCH
Institutional Retaliation Is Not Care—It’s Criminal

๐Ÿ“† 29 May 2025
๐Ÿท️ Labels: Press ReleaseCriminal ReferralNHS HarassmentPolice MisconductSocial Worker AbuseDisability DiscriminationLegal ComplaintCivil ClaimJudicial ReviewCoercive SafeguardingPLO RetaliationEnergetic WarfareField AbuseSystemic Retaliation


“Institutional Retaliation Is Not Care—It’s Criminal”

A Formal Statement from the Family of Chromatic

๐Ÿชž Filed Under: Legal Escalation, Disability Rights, Criminal Misconduct, Retaliation by Safeguarding, NHS Harassment, Police Negligence


๐Ÿ’ผ Formal Complaint Alleges Coordinated Criminal Misconduct

A British Resident mother and her four disabled children have filed a formal, multi-agency complaint exposing a coordinated pattern of institutional misconduct that defies any reasonable claim of “care.”

Ms Chromatic—diagnosed with muscle tension dysphoniaeosinophilic asthma, and PTSD—reports a sustained campaign of:

  • ❌ False safeguarding referrals triggered immediately after hospital discrimination

  • ❌ Unlawful child interviews without notice, support, or legal authority

  • ❌ Forced verbal communication despite medical orders for written-only contact

  • ❌ Escalated PLO retaliation masquerading as concern

  • ❌ Police refusal to retrieve CCTV evidence which would have cleared the family entirely

๐Ÿ’ฌ “This isn’t child protection,” she writes. “It’s punishment by process.”


๐Ÿ“œ Legal Foundations & Claims

The formal complaint, entitled:
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation”
details breaches of:

  • The Equality Act 2010

  • The Human Rights Act 1998

  • The Fraud Act 2006

  • The Children Act 1989

  • The Protection from Harassment Act 1997

๐Ÿงพ Active proceedings include:

  • An N1 Civil Claim

  • An N461 Judicial Review Application
    —together totalling over £23 million in damages sought.


๐Ÿ›‘ No Verbal Contact — Written Only

In accordance with her medical access needsMs Chromatic cannot communicate by phone.

๐Ÿ“œ View her Written Communication Statement:
swankarchive.com/p/written-communication-statement.html

๐Ÿ“ฉ Email for press or document access:
complaints@swankarchive.com

๐ŸŒ Full Legal Bundle and Public Archive:
www.swankarchive.com


This is not a misunderstanding.
It’s a structural malfunction.
And SWANK is watching.


Polly Chromatic
Curator-in-Chief, SWANK Archive
Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms

From Negligence to Felony: Legal Grounds for Criminal Referral in Social Work



SECTION VII: LEGAL BREACHES AND GROUNDS FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

From Negligence to Felony: When Procedure Becomes Crime


I. The Line Between Misconduct and Criminality

Many assume social work failures are merely bureaucratic—tragic, yes, but legal.
This is false.

When social workers:

  • Fabricate or withhold records

  • Retaliate against complaints

  • Remove children without lawful grounds

  • Collude to conceal harm

…they may be committing criminal offences under UK law.

This section outlines specific statutory and common law breaches observed in the documented cases.


II. Relevant Statutes Potentially Violated

LawPotential Breach
Children Act 1989Unlawful removal without threshold of significant harm
Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR)Withholding SAR documents; falsification or deletion of records
Equality Act 2010Failure to provide reasonable adjustments; disability and racial discrimination
Fraud Act 2006False representation in court documents or referrals
Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8, Article 6)Family life violations; denial of fair process in child protection cases
Protection from Harassment Act 1997Persistent, targeted interference following complaints or legal action
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA)Suppression or retaliation against internal whistleblowers

III. Criminal Patterns Observed

  • Falsified Concerns: Generating referrals based on non-existent or exaggerated claims

  • Suppression of Exculpatory Material: Deliberately omitting or hiding evidence favourable to the family

  • Collusion Across Agencies: Inter-agency protectionism through coordinated silence

  • Unlawful Interviews: Questioning children without a guardian or legal representation

  • Use of Coercive Control: Emotional manipulation of disabled or vulnerable parents to enforce compliance

These are not merely unethical.
They are potentially indictable offences.


IV. Threshold for Criminal Referral

A criminal referral becomes necessary when:

  • There is a pattern of procedural manipulation

  • Harm is structuralrepeated, and not incidental

  • Internal remedies have been exhausted or obstructed

  • There is evidence of intent to punish, conceal, or exploit

In multiple documented cases, this threshold has been crossed.


V. Barriers to Prosecution

Despite the clarity of violations, prosecutions are rare. Why?

  • Police routinely defer safeguarding allegations back to the originating agency

  • Regulators such as Social Work England reduce violations to “fitness to practise” issues

  • Family courts lack public oversight, operating behind closed doors

  • Legal aid is denied unless the child has already been removed

  • Whistleblowers are silenced before documentation becomes public

It is a sealed legal circuit—where the harmed cannot activate the protection they’re told exists.


VI. Call to Legal Action

This report supports immediate escalation, including:

  • Referral to the IOPC for collusion, misconduct, and negligence by police

  • Submission of evidence to CPS for charges including forgery, fraud, and perjury

  • Petitions for Parliamentary inquiry into care-sector corruption and statutory abuse

  • Civil litigation under tort law and Article 8 ECHR for rights violations

No public system should be exempt from criminal scrutiny simply because its violence is committed on official letterhead.



Documented Obsessions