“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 Disability Exemption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disability Exemption. Show all posts

No, You May Not Have My Hair — or My Friends.


⟡ They Asked for a Hair Sample and Her Entire Contact List. She Sent Them a Legal Refusal — and the Police Got a Copy. ⟡
This isn’t safeguarding. This is overreach in a child protection costume.

Filed: 20 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-20_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_LawfulRefusal_HairStrandContactDisclosure.pdf
A formal email lawfully refusing Westminster’s demands for invasive bodily testing and personal contact disclosure — issued during PLO proceedings and copied to police, educational, and health professionals.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal, under the guise of PLO protocol, attempted to demand:

  1. A hair strand drug test.

  2. The names and personal contact information of everyone in the children’s lives.

The mother — medically exempt, legally protected, and insulted by the absurdity — replied in writing.
She reminded them of boundaries.
She invoked the law.
She cc’d the police.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That Westminster demanded highly invasive and irrelevant information

  • That the parent issued a written refusal grounded in legal and medical protections

  • That the refusal was shared with safeguarding professionals and law enforcement

  • That the council was engaging in escalating intimidation without procedural cause

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent is legally obliged to provide a DNA sample to a social worker with a clipboard.
Because “disclosure” doesn’t mean handing over the social circle.
And because lawfully declining state overreach should not require three carbon copies and police backup — but here we are.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Abuse of Safeguarding Framework to Extract Personal Data

  • Coercive Demand for Medical Testing Without Legal Grounds

  • Procedural Intimidation Through Overreach

  • Disability Discrimination by Ignoring Medical Exemptions

  • Institutional Escalation Beyond Mandate

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a request. It was a threat in PowerPoint language.
But the mother didn’t flinch — she documented.
There is no legal right to sample her body.
There is no safeguarding clause that entitles you to her phonebook.
And there is no future where this kind of behaviour goes unarchived.

⟡ 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.
No comments:

Documented Obsessions