Showing posts with label Disability Retaliation. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Custodians of Cruelty: A Criminal Referral in Triplicate

THE RETALIATORS' REGISTER

On the Criminal Referral of Hornal, Brown, and Newman for Procedural Retaliation and Safeguarding Misuse

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 21 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC-LE-CRIMINAL-01
PDF Filename: 2025-06-21_SWANK_CriminalReferral_Hornal_Newman_Brown_ComplicityAndRetaliation.pdf
Summary: A formal criminal referral against three Westminster officials for safeguarding as harassment, procedure as punishment, and retaliation as policy.

I. What Happened

On 21 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, director of SWANK London Ltd and mother to four medically vulnerable U.S. citizen children, filed a criminal referral to the Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police.

The accused:

Kirsty Hornal, social worker
Sam Brown, deputy team manager
Sarah Newman, executive director of children’s services

The charges:

Retaliation for legal action
Harassment via coercive visits and package drops
Procedural sabotage and manipulation
Malfeasance in public office
Disability discrimination masquerading as concern

II. What the Filing Establishes

This is not a safeguarding oversight — this is a safeguarding weapon.

This referral maps the exact sequence by which Westminster’s internal operatives:

Ignored lawful medical accommodations
Fabricated obstruction through refusal to respond to clear procedural emails
Timed coercive home visits to coincide with public legal disclosures
Used “concern” as an alibi for surveillance
Initiated the unlawful seizure of four U.S. citizen children in defiance of medical, legal, and international norms

Each of these is not a misstep — it is a calculated act of institutional reprisal.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because these three individuals are not exceptions — they are the model Westminster runs on.

They operationalise “safeguarding” as a punishment system.
They reclassify resistance as risk, and documentation as defiance.
They punish written communication.
They lie, they loop, they ambush.
And they count on you to be too breathless, too overwhelmed, too polite to fight.

So this post is the correction.

This is what happens when the mother they tried to disable files three criminal referrals —
in one document —
under her own name,
under no one’s command but her own.

IV. Violations

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Repeated intimidation under professional pretense
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 19, 20 – Disability-based procedural discrimination
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 (inhuman treatment), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)
Malfeasance in Public Office – Common law
Data Protection Act 2018 – Improper access and misuse of information under false safeguarding narratives

V. SWANK’s Position

This referral is not only legally correct — it is morally essential.

The institutions that harmed this family were notified.
The professionals were served.
And now they are filed.

This document is not a cry for help.
It is an act of formalised vengeance, arranged in the Queen’s language, filed at New Scotland Yard, and sealed with velvet wrath.

This is not a cry — it is a catalogued scream.

⚖️ 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.

Chromatic v The Department That Read Her Trauma Like a To-Do List – On the Weaponisation of Acknowledgment Without Action

“Thank You for Acknowledging the Timeline. Your Resignation Will Suffice.”

⟡ An Email Acknowledgment That Managed to Say Nothing While Admitting Everything

IN THE MATTER OF: The art of the polite fob-off, safeguarding gaslighting, and the gall of asking for trust after years of trauma

⟡ METADATA

Filed: 21 July 2020
Reference Code: SWANK-TCI-ACKNOWLEDGMENT-EMPTY
Court File Name: 2020-07-21_Records_AshleyAdamsAcknowledgesComplaintAndTimeline
Summary: After 3.5 years of illegal investigations, forced hospital visits, statutory breaches, surveillance-level visits, and refusal to provide required reports, Polly Chromatic submitted a legally grounded 12-page timeline and complaint. Ashley Adams-Forbes responded with a polite email: vague praise, non-answers, a week-long delay, and an emotionally manipulative suggestion that Polly didn’t need to “prove herself” — after three years of being required to do exactly that. This email is a masterclass in professional deflection and safeguarding delusion.

I. What Happened

After submitting a trauma-documented, statute-cited timeline and asking very reasonable questions like “What is the purpose of this investigation?”, Polly Chromatic received this tidy email in return. It offered no substantive reply, no answers to her questions, and no mention of the statutory breaches outlined. Instead, the Deputy Director apologised for not responding sooner, thanked her for the clarification, and requested a week’s time to reply — a reply that never came in the form of meaningful action.

II. What the Email Confirms

That the Department received and read a comprehensive complaint and timeline
That it recognised its delay in responding
That it failed to address any of the key statutory breaches, including:
- §17(6) of the Children Ordinance 2015 (case report requirement)
- Emergency COVID-19 laws violated during visits
- Homeschool protection under the Education Ordinance
That it attempted to dismiss the record as unnecessary over-proving — despite having asked for exactly that in prior emails

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when an institution responds to trauma with performative empathy, someone must document the duplicity. Because “thank you for proving your trauma in excessive detail” is not a compliment — it’s an indictment. Because a week of silence after 3.5 years of harassment is not resolution — it’s bureaucratic amnesia. And because no public official should ever tell a traumatised mother that she needn’t prove herself after requiring her to email her credentials, CV, income, and medical records for years.

IV. Violations

Negligent case oversight
Emotional gaslighting disguised as empathy
Refusal to produce case outcome reports
Deflection of legal responsibility
Failure to provide clear investigation purpose or closure
Violation of education rights and homeschooling protections
Disability-based harassment and retaliation

V. SWANK’s Position

We log this as an example of the government’s strategy of smile-drenched sabotage. SWANK London Ltd. affirms:

That acknowledgment without remedy is still abuse
That professional-sounding emails are not a substitute for lawful behaviour
That telling a mother she doesn’t have to prove herself — after demanding her CV — is insulting
That a 12-page complaint does not require “a week to draft a letter” — it requires an immediate apology and institutional reform
That this response is best placed in a file titled “How to Say Nothing After 3 Years of Everything”

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: The Procedural Surrender to Liability Consciousness

⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed Date: 17 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-NHSRES-ACKNOWLEDGMENT
PDF Filename: 2025-07-17_SWANK_LiabilityTransfer_NHSResolutionAcknowledged.pdf
1-Line Summary: Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust has formally escalated Polly’s £88M civil claim to NHS Resolution, confirming official legal risk recognition.

I. What Happened

On 16 July 2025, Sandra West — legal officer for Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust — issued a formal reply to Polly Chromatic’s multi-defendant N1 civil claim, stating that the case has been handed to the Trust’s legal insurer: NHS Resolution.

This procedural transfer was not simply clerical.

It marked the moment the Trust formally acknowledged:

the validity and seriousness of Polly’s legal action,
the potential institutional liability it exposes,
and the scale of public interest risk it now carries.

The case is now assigned to Olivia Pearce (NHS Resolution), with case reference M25CT541/011.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The civil claim filed by Polly Chromatic outlines:

Medical negligence (oxygen deprivation, dysphonia, safeguarding harm)
Retaliatory behaviour by social care bodies, solicitors, and medical staff
Multi-institutional collusion
Psychological, physical, and procedural harm spanning years

The Trust’s decision to forward this to NHS Resolution is a legal gesture of liability awareness, not just a forwarding of mail.

It shows the Trust knows it is not in a position to deny, deflect, or casually discard the evidence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This event establishes:

A formal turning point in civil procedure
That the weight of the claim is being taken seriously
That Polly, as a litigant in person, has succeeded where full legal teams often falter

SWANK London Ltd. is logging this moment to document the pattern of:

Legal systems folding once proper documentation is presented
Institutions shielding themselves with insurers when truth becomes too sharp

IV. Violations

The original claim names 23 defendants, including:

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services
The Metropolitan Police
CPS
Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, Alan Mullem, Dr. Reid, and others in their personal and/or professional capacities

Primary violations alleged:

Disability discrimination
Medical negligence
Safeguarding misuse
Institutional retaliation
Suppression of parental rights

This NHS acknowledgment implicitly accepts the seriousness of these allegations.

V. SWANK’s Position

When a Trust forwards a claim to NHS Resolution, it ceases to posture as innocent.
It becomes, procedurally, a defending party. That distinction matters.

It signals that the harm alleged is:

Legally arguable
Medically traceable
Procedurally potent

SWANK London Ltd. asserts that the NHS Trust’s action — taken on record — confirms that Polly Chromatic’s legal voice carries enough weight to activate institutional insurance mechanisms.

The velvet letterhead has been received. The clock is ticking.

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

Downloaded via www.swanklondon.com
Not edited. Not deleted. Only documented.

Chromatic v. Newman (Failure to Cease, Failure to Protect, Failure to Lead)

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

The Notice They Refused to Heed: Sarah Newman, Safeguarding Retaliation, and the Formal End of Good Faith

Filed Date: 22 May 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-A13-SARAHNEWMAN-CEASE
Court File Name: 2025-05-22_SWANK_Addendum_CeaseAndDesist_SarahNewman_RetaliationNotice
1-line Summary: A formal legal notice demanding institutional disengagement due to disability discrimination and procedural abuse — ignored by Westminster.

I. What Happened

On 22 May 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a Final Legal Notice to Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Bi-Borough Children’s Services. This cease-and-desist letter was sent in direct response to repeated, unlawful safeguarding contact by Westminster and RBKC officials — all while Polly’s medical, legal, and procedural rights were already on record.

The letter:

Summarised active legal proceedings (N1, N16A, Judicial Review)
Cited filed police reports
Asserted enforceable medical adjustments under the Equality Act 2010
Demanded cessation of all verbal, encrypted, or in-person communication
Warned of personal liability, court escalation, and whistleblower release

Sarah Newman did not respond. Instead, her department escalated its aggression — leading to the forced removal of Polly's four children just one month later.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Sarah Newman was personally placed on legal notice
That medical exemptions and legal adjustments were clearly invoked
That the right to silence was lawfully exercised
That non-response constituted institutional negligence
That any further engagement from her department after this date was retaliatory, not protective

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is never neutral.
Because refusal to disengage after formal notice isn’t oversight — it’s oppression.
Because this document proves that Westminster acted in full knowledge of its breaches, and that Sarah Newman’s leadership role was not passive, but participatory.

This notice was the line — drawn with legal citations, medical backing, and active court filings. Westminster crossed it anyway. That makes what followed not child protection, but jurisdictional misconduct.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Failure to honour communication adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8, Article 14) – Family interference without justification
Safeguarding Retaliation Doctrine – Use of child welfare systems to punish legal assertiveness
Common Law Harassment – Repeated, unwanted contact after formal refusal
UN CRPD, Articles 5 and 21 – Disregard for disability-related legal protections

V. SWANK’s Position

Sarah Newman, as Executive Director, had the legal, institutional, and ethical duty to acknowledge this cease-and-desist. She failed — and therefore became an active party to the harm that followed.

This notice is now logged permanently in the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue, the civil claim, and the UN submissions. It will serve as Exhibit A in all future claims of institutional retaliation, leadership misconduct, and safeguarding misuse.

They were told.
They were warned.
They escalated anyway.
And now the record will not let them forget it.

SWANK v Westminster: In Re The Removal That Triggered a Judicial Reckoning

“Judicial Review Has Been Filed. The Children Are American. The Silence Is Over.”

Formal Notice to the Administrative Court: Retaliatory Safeguarding Now Under Legal Siege

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

Reference Code: SWANK/ADMINCOURT/0624-JR-REMOVALNOTICE
Court Filename: 2025-06-24_Letter_to_AdminCourt_JRSubmission_USChildrenRemovalNotice
One-line Summary: Judicial Review notice served to the Administrative Court, U.S. Embassy, and Family Court confirming unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children on 23 June 2025 is under legal challenge.

I. What Happened

At 4:03 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted this formal notice to the Administrative Court, notifying them that a Judicial Review claim had been filed, accompanied by an emergency relief application and a detailed evidentiary archive.

This submission declared that four U.S. citizen children had been forcibly removed by Westminster on 23 June without lawful threshold, medical justification, consular notice, or service—while their mother had an active civil claim and known disability access protections in place.

The bundle included everything:
• Judicial Review Claim
• Emergency Relief Request
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Retaliatory Removal Addendum
• Sibling Non-Separation Addendum
• Full administrative evidence trail

All also filed at www.swanklondon.com—because unlike the Family Court, SWANK doesn’t lose its paperwork.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Westminster executed a removal without a hearing, court order presentation, or safeguarding threshold met.
That the parent, a disabled U.S. citizen, had an active N1 civil claim at the time of removal—making the event a clear act of procedural retaliation.
That children with joint medical plans and no risk profile were taken by force, then hidden.
That this is not simply a family matter—it is now a matter of constitutional, international, and consular consequence.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because if you remove four foreign children without notice and call it safeguarding, someone needs to call it what it really is: state-sanctioned abduction in procedural costume.

Because when the court claims it didn’t know, you show them the filing timestamp.

Because administrative courts do not get to deliberate while pretending nothing has been served, and consulates do not get to delay when children have already been seized.

Because a parent who cannot speak was ignored, so SWANK spoke instead—loud, legal, and downloadable.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Sections 38 & 44
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6 & 8
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 29
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – Article 37
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Articles 3, 9, 12
Judicial Review Principles – Procedural impropriety, irrationality, breach of legitimate expectation

V. SWANK’s Position

This notice is more than a courtesy—it is a procedural stake in the ground.

The court now knows. The Embassy now knows. The Family Court has been served. The state cannot act in silence while pretending no one has filed in opposition. The retaliation is no longer undocumented. The challenge is no longer private.

SWANK London Ltd. hereby affirms: This was a diplomatic event, not a domestic blip.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

⟡ SWANK Position Statement – Grounds for Protective Relocation and International Oversight ⟡
A Legal Justification for Diplomatic and Human Rights Intervention on Behalf of U.S. Nationals

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/INTL/PROTECTIVE-RELOCATION
📎 Download PDF: 2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf
Summary: A formal position statement asserting the legal and humanitarian right of a disabled U.S. mother and her four citizen children to protective relocation, following sustained Crown-led retaliation.

I. Applicant Identity and Protected Status

The Applicant, Polly Chromatic (legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett), is a disabled U.S. citizen. She is the mother of four minor children, all American nationals by birth — and all currently caught in a Crown jurisdiction that treats citizenship as inconvenience and disability as defiance.

Her diagnoses include:

Eosinophilic Asthma
Muscle Dysphonia
PTSD induced by institutional harassment and procedural sabotage

Her crime: Filing lawful documents.
Her punishment: Removal, silence, and erasure by policy.

II. Grounds for Protective Relocation

1. Procedural Exile

Stripped of access to family life, medical updates, and participation in any legal forum that doesn’t pre-condemn her.
Safeguarding has become not a shield, but a weapon.

2. Disability-Based Persecution

Her health conditions were not accommodated. They were weaponised. Used as evidence of incapacity by institutions that refused to even pronounce their names correctly.

3. Child Protection and Citizenship Harm

All four children are U.S. citizens.
None received consular protection.
All were removed without process, care plans, or lawful grounds — as if citizenship ends at the border of safeguarding fiction.

4. Transnational Retaliation Pattern

The United Kingdom and Turks and Caicos have demonstrated remarkable coordination in one regard: their talent for retaliating against disabled women who file too well.

III. Requested Oversight and Action

Polly Chromatic requests formal recognition as:

A procedurally exiled U.S. citizen
A disabled mother of four endangered minors
A documented target of safeguarding-based retaliation

She seeks:

Protective relocation to the U.S. or neutral territory
Diplomatic intervention by the U.S. State Department
Investigation by UN Special Rapporteurs
Legal accountability under Crown, UN, and consular law

IV. Supporting Documentation

This position is not hypothetical. It is:

Substantiated by a Declaration of Transnational Retaliation
Supplemented by Judicial Review filings and N244 applications
Reinforced by 13+ SWANK Addenda
Mapped in the Master Retaliation Timeline
Known to the U.S. Embassy and Office of Children’s Issues

The pattern is complete. The proof is filed.

V. SWANK’s Position

There is no law left in a jurisdiction where disability is framed as risk and foreign children are removed with diplomatic indifference.

This is not a relocation of preference.
This is a relocation of survival.

SWANK London Ltd affirms Polly Chromatic’s legal, moral, and humanitarian right to:

Protective relocation
Diplomatic relief
International legal remedy

Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
www.swanklondon.com
director@swanklondon.com

Signed:
Polly Chromatic
(legal name: Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett)

⟡ Second Title (Case Law Style):
Chromatic v The Crown: On the Relocation of the Documented and the Damned

Court Labels:
Protective Relocation, Procedural Exile, U.S. Nationals, Disability Persecution, Crown Jurisdiction Abuse, SWANK Filing

Search Description:
Position statement requesting relocation and oversight for U.S. citizens retaliated against under Crown safeguarding abuse

Filename:
2025-07-01_SWANK_Position_ProtectiveRelocationAndOversight.pdf

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every omission is documented. Every silence is intentional. Every exile is evidentiary.

This is not a petition. It is precedent.
This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument of sovereign resistance.

We do not ask. We file.
We do not wait. We archive.

They Withdrew Support to Prove I Didn’t Deserve It — Then Punished Me for Saying That Out Loud

⟡ “They Closed the Support Plan. Then Escalated the Case. The Only Thing That Changed Was: I Filed a Complaint.” ⟡
A formal complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services detailing how safeguarding procedures were used not to protect — but to punish. This is the written proof that complaint equals escalation.

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/FCS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliation_CINClosure_PLOAbuse.pdf
Complaint letter submitted to joint safeguarding teams for Westminster and RBKC documenting disability discrimination, emotional injury, cultural erasure, and the procedural transformation of support into surveillance. CIN closed after police report. PLO initiated days later.

I. What Happened

This is the complaint that names the cycle:

Medical injury documented
Support requested
Complaint filed
Support withdrawn
Retaliation escalated

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted this complaint to Westminster and RBKC. It names:

Verbal coercion despite psychiatric confirmation of medical harm
The closure of the Child in Need plan after the parent reported the authority to police
Immediate PLO escalation as retribution, not protection
The refusal to provide culturally safe or adjusted social work allocation
The weaponisation of communication preferences as non-compliance

It also confirms that both boroughs had full access to medical and legal evidence before taking these steps — and proceeded anyway.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

CIN was not support. It was surveillance.
Once challenged, that surveillance was revoked and replaced with threat
The parent’s voice was not heard — it was repackaged as resistance
Cultural and linguistic identity were disregarded in favour of bureaucratic comfort
Both Westminster and RBKC engaged in coordinated procedural retaliation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the complaint doesn’t escalate the situation — it reveals that the situation was escalation all along. This letter marks the institutional failure to act ethically once accountability entered the room.

SWANK archived this to:

Prove that complaint and police reporting were treated as threats by safeguarding staff
Cement the evidentiary link between voice, retaliation, and false escalation
Ensure that the official record reflects who turned support into punishment

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Failure to adjust (verbal contact demands)
• Section 27: Victimisation following police report
• Section 149: Disregard of public sector equality duty
Children Act 1989 – CIN withdrawal and PLO escalation caused institutional emotional harm
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family life
• Article 14: Discrimination
Social Work England Standards – Misuse of power, bias, dishonesty in professional conduct
UNCRPD & UNCRC – Cultural erasure, accessibility breaches, protection failures

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a safeguarding system in operation. It was a reputation management strategy masquerading as concern. Once held accountable, the system didn’t self-correct — it retaliated.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Full regulatory review of CIN and PLO escalation procedures
Public correction of the false “non-engagement” narrative
External oversight of both boroughs’ safeguarding teams from 2023–2025

Misnamed, Mistranslated, and Mishandled: How Westminster Disrespects the Families It Claims to Protect

⟡ “His Name Is Not ‘Alex’ and You Don’t Get to Choose His Language” ⟡
Westminster’s cultural incompetence becomes legal discrimination — again.

Filed: 27 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-27_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOIrregularities_MisnamingLanguageDiscrimination.pdf
Formal letter documenting statutory and procedural violations by Westminster Children’s Services regarding name misidentification, failure to provide translation, and retaliatory escalation against a disabled parent asserting legal rights.

I. What Happened

On 27 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal letter to Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown, documenting their procedural failure in communicating with her children’s father. The complaint identified two key issues:

His name was spelled incorrectly in official correspondence
Despite his clear request, Westminster failed to provide communication in Kreyòl (Haitian Creole) — his legal and linguistic right for formal matters

The letter also reasserted the claimant’s own legal requirement for written-only communication, documenting previous harm, diagnoses, and protections under the Equality Act 2010. It ends with a reminder that misidentifying individuals and ignoring declared needs constitutes both UK GDPR violation and statutory non-compliance.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural mishandling of personal data and legal identity
Failure to meet statutory duties for language access and cultural competence
Clear warning to correct records and avoid further legal risk
Reiteration of the claimant’s written-only adjustment, medical history, and retaliation timeline
Evidence of intersectional discrimination across ethnicity, disability, and family structure

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not a bureaucratic oversight — it is a formal demonstration of how institutional convenience consistently overrides legal precision and cultural respect. Westminster’s refusal to use the correct name and provide interpretation isn’t just rude. It’s unlawful.

SWANK London Ltd. archived this document to:

Preserve evidence of racialised misnaming and linguistic exclusion
Expose how Westminster disregards cultural identity in formal legal settings
Establish a public record of written assertions and ignored legal boundaries

This letter is proof that accuracy is not optional, and that identity — both linguistic and legal — must be respected by those who claim to safeguard children and families.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 19 (indirect discrimination), Section 149 (public sector equality duty)
UK GDPR – Article 5 (accuracy of personal data), Article 16 (right to rectification)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)
Children Act 1989 – Duty to protect family integrity through lawful and fair practice
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 30 (cultural identity), Article 23 (disabled parent protection)

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s inability to use someone’s correct name — and to deliver communication in their legal language — is not a clerical hiccup. It is systemic erasure. When coupled with disability discrimination and safeguarding threats, this becomes an administrative practice of targeted destabilisation.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

Immediate rectification of all records containing incorrect names or language assumptions
Mandatory translation and interpretation protocols for all cross-cultural PLO involvement
Regulatory review of Westminster’s handling of identity and access under statutory obligations

Disability Isn’t Defiance — But That’s How She Treated It

⟡ “She Ignored a Psychiatric Report — Then Called Me a Risk” ⟡
A formal complaint to Social Work England documenting how Kirsty Hornal violated disability law, safeguarding standards, and basic decency — in that order.

Filed: 4 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-04_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Regulatory complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal for disability-based retaliation, failure to accommodate written-only contact, and procedural abuse during the safeguarding process.

I. What Happened

After submitting medical documentation confirming the necessity of written-only communication, Polly Chromatic was subjected to a series of procedural threats and surveillance-style contact attempts by Kirsty Hornal — a registered social worker with Westminster Children’s Services.

This complaint, submitted to Social Work England, documents how Kirsty:

Refused to respect written-only communication despite clear clinical evidence
Mischaracterised the communication boundary as hostility or non-engagement
Escalated to PLO procedures immediately following lawful complaint activity
Disregarded a psychiatric report from Dr. Irfan Rafiq (dated 26 November 2024)
Directly contributed to the emotional harm of a disabled parent and her children

The complaint provides a factual timeline, legal context, and emotional impact — in language Kirsty could have understood, had she cared to read.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Disability accommodations were both documented and denied
PLO escalation occurred as retaliation, not protection
Statutory frameworks were used as a compliance weapon, not safeguarding
Repeated contact attempts constituted psychological harm
Kirsty Hornal was not acting in ignorance — she was acting in defiance

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm caused by incompetence is tragic — but harm caused by deliberate dismissal of medical need is professional misconduct. SWANK archived this complaint because it proves a single social worker, presented with the truth, chose to act against it.

SWANK filed this to:

Begin the process of professional accountability for disability-based safeguarding retaliation
Demonstrate the direct causal link between ignored adjustments and emotional harm
Establish legal precedent that procedural escalation following complaint is retaliatory conduct

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair hearing), Article 8 (private/family life)
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding to pursue non-safeguarding objectives
Social Work England Standards – Failure to uphold dignity, respect, truthfulness, and lawfulness
UNCRPD & UNCRC – Denial of disabled parent support and harm to family stability

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a communication failure. It was a professional decision. A registered social worker received medical evidence and chose to interpret it as defiance. That is not safeguarding. That is retaliation — and now it’s regulation.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Immediate SWE review of Kirsty Hornal’s professional fitness to practise
Investigation into her conduct across all CIN, PLO, and CP cases from 2023–2025
Temporary suspension from direct work with disabled families until resolved

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: A Regulator Without Teeth Is a Threat ⟡

⟡ “What Is Social Work England For, If Not This?” ⟡
Formal complaint to the Professional Standards Authority for SWE’s failure to investigate blatant misconduct, retaliation, and disability discrimination

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE-PSA/REGULATORY-FAILURE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Complaint_PSA_SWEFailure_HornalMisconduct.pdf
Submission to PSA requesting investigation into Social Work England’s inaction despite detailed misconduct reports against Kirsty Hornal

I. What Happened

On 23 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA)concerning Social Work England’s failure to investigate multiple well-evidenced allegations of professional misconduct by Kirsty Hornal.

The submission followed nearly a year of SWE inaction in response to complaints documenting:

Retaliation after a safeguarding case collapsed without findings
Fabricated allegations in a formal PLO letter
Documented disability discrimination and refusal to implement accommodations
Misrepresentation of a child’s statement
Psychological harassment backed by statutory authority

Despite psychiatric and medical evidence, a full chronology, and multiple formal letters, SWE has refused to escalate the matter. Hornal remains in post, continuing to exert power over the family she harmed.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Social Work England’s failure to investigate despite clear grounds under Fitness to Practise
Human impact: Sustained mental health harm, institutional retraumatisation, and unrelieved surveillance
Power dynamics: A regulator protecting the regulated — while the victim remains under scrutiny
Institutional failure: SWE’s silence transformed complicity into a policy position
Unacceptable conduct: Allowing a social worker to escalate retaliation after a police report without oversight

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a regulator ignores psychiatric records, police reports, PLO abuse, and medical documentation — it’s not negligence. It’s endorsement.
Because this wasn’t one complaint. It was an archive.
Because “not escalated under FTP” is no longer a procedural detail. It’s a euphemism for professional immunity.
Because this entry is about more than Hornal. It’s about the system that kept her in uniform.
And if the PSA doesn’t respond — the PHSO will.

IV. Violations

Professional Standards Authority Remit – failure to ensure regulatory bodies uphold public protection and fair process
Social Work England Statutory Duties, under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 – failure to act on risks to the public
Equality Act 2010, Section 27 – victimisation following protected disability disclosure
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – exposure to retaliatory interference with family life
Principles of Public Law – maladministration, procedural unfairness, and regulatory inertia

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that Fitness to Practise is a decorative process.
We do not accept that a social worker who retaliates post-litigation is still fit for practice.
We do not accept that silence from a regulator is anything but permission.

SWANK considers this a matter of institutional protectionism — and will escalate, archive, and publish until action is taken.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: Fitness to Practise, Failure to Stop ⟡

⟡ “A Fitness to Practise Concern Shouldn’t Need a Trigger Warning.” ⟡
Submission to Social Work England citing sustained misconduct, refusal of accommodations, and statutory misuse by Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 1 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-TO-PRACTISE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-01_SWANK_SWEConcern_KirstyHornal_FTPViolation.pdf
Email to SWE submitting formal FTP concern against Kirsty Hornal for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation

I. What Happened

On 1 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal Fitness to Practise concern to Social Work England, naming Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services as a practitioner engaged in unethical conduct. The message cited:

Retaliatory escalation of safeguarding after legal filings
Failure to respect medically confirmed communication adjustments
Repeated contact attempts via inaccessible formats
Harassment through procedural pressure and fabricated urgency

The submission was sent directly to SWE and copied to Hornal herself — a direct act of jurisdictional assertion from a disabled parent subject to state interference.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Circumvention of lawful disability adjustments; baseless safeguarding escalation
Human impact: Respiratory strain, PTSD triggers, and threat-induced instability for the entire family
Power dynamics: Social worker bypassing medical documentation to force coercive compliance
Institutional failure: No internal redress pathway; escalation treated as default response to resistance
Unacceptable conduct: Defining protected behaviour (e.g. email-only requests, legal complaints) as neglectful or hostile

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint was the baseline — and it should have been enough.
Because a Fitness to Practise process that requires multiple filings is already an indictment of the profession.
Because Kirsty Hornal was notified of this concern in real time — and chose to continue her conduct.
Because institutional violence often wears a badge of procedure — and this submission tore it off.

This post marks the beginning of a formal timeline: when a disabled mother sent the email that turned misconduct into record.

IV. Violations

Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – respect, access, honesty, protection from harm
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate; retaliatory treatment for protected acts
Children Act 1989, Section 17 – neglect of child welfare to enforce parental compliance
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 & 14 – disability-based interference in private and family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be used to punish legal defiance.
We do not accept that “duty” overrides medical reality.
We do not accept that social workers can redefine resistance as risk.

This wasn’t just a complaint. It was a diagnosis — of professional decay, system rot, and personal vendetta masquerading as policy.

SWANK does not wait for institutional review. We publish our own.

⟡ Chromatic v Children’s Services: When Retaliation Replaced Care ⟡

⟡ “Retaliation is Not a Service. Discrimination is Not a Strategy.” ⟡
Formal multi-agency complaint submitted to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services for systemic failure, disability abuse, and retaliation

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/SYSTEMIC-FAILURE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliationSystemicFailings.pdf
Complaint addressed to both boroughs outlining institutional retaliation, disability neglect, and safeguarding weaponisation

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a joint complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services. The email, copied to Dr. Philip Reid and social worker Kirsty Hornal, attached a comprehensive record of medical, legal, and evidentiary failures by multiple professionals. The complaint identified a pattern of retaliation following:

Protected legal activity
Disability-related communication requests
Efforts to assert child rights and prevent medical harm

The documents submitted included NHS correspondence, PLO challenges, and social worker reports — laying bare the pattern of coordinated refusal to accommodate, respond, or de-escalate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Ignoring written-only communication needs; retaliating against legal action; failure to apply child welfare principles
Human impact: Medical regression, psychological harm, loss of educational access, fear of home invasion
Power dynamics: Social work roles repurposed as surveillance and compliance enforcement
Institutional failure: Total collapse of accountability, checks, or even basic communication standards
Unacceptable conduct: Targeting a disabled mother and her children under the pretext of care

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints should not be met with escalation.
Because safeguarding cannot be invoked against the very families it fails to safeguard.
Because retaliation is not an “internal matter” — it’s a jurisdictional breach.
Because Polly Chromatic made this clear: the pattern is no longer anecdotal — it’s administrative culture.

This entry was not written in anger. It was written in architectural grief.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, 27 – failure to adjust, harassment by refusal, victimisation by escalation
Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk frameworks; neglect of actual welfare needs
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – obstruction of due process; invasion of family privacy
Professional Conduct Codes – neglect of duties under SWE and local authority guidance

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t failure. It was structure.
We do not accept social work as a tool of punishment.
We do not accept medical vulnerability as an invitation for institutional punishment.
We do not accept safeguarding that treats parents as threats and records as weapons.

SWANK archives this complaint as a civil record of modern municipal abuse — documented with clarity, filed with jurisdictional precision.

Retaliatory Safeguarding Meets International Oversight: A Judicial Review for the Archive

⟡ The Audacity of Procedure: Judicial Review Filed Against Westminster & RBKC ⟡
“Audited. Reprimanded. Now formally challenged.”

Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/JR/WESTMINSTER+RBKC/0625
📎 Download Full Judicial Review Bundle (PDF) – 2025-06-17_SWANK_JudicialReviewBundle_Westminster_RBKC.pdf
A full judicial review application, supporting letter, and evidentiary suite exposing safeguarding misuse, jurisdictional failure, and disability law violations.

I. What Happened
Two boroughs, neither qualified nor lawfully positioned, attempted to co-opt safeguarding procedures as retaliatory instruments. The parent—disabled and documenting—was met not with support but with obstruction, coercion, and threat.

Despite repeated legal notices and confirmed jurisdictional overreach, Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services refused to stand down, cease unlawful correspondence, or respect accessibility conditions. The misuse of Public Law Outline (PLO) procedures and persistent breach of statutory obligations catalysed this judicial review.

II. What the Judicial Review Establishes
• Abuse of process under safeguarding and PLO frameworks
• Jurisdictional failure post-age-of-majority milestone
• Retaliation for protected expression and archiving
• Neglect of confirmed disability accommodations
• Pattern of misconduct ignored by internal complaints and ombudsman routes

III. Supporting Documents
The bundle includes:
• Completed Judicial Review Application Form
• Full Supporting Letter (SWANK London Ltd.)
• Procedural Review re: Kirsty Hornal's threats
• Jurisdiction Reassertion Audit
• Audit Demand Issued 6 June 2025
• Ofsted Complaint exposing pattern of misuse
• Prior Legal Notices and procedural default letters

All documents reference official misconduct by Westminster and RBKC authorities between 2023–2025. The materials are admissible and timestamped under evidentiary archiving protocol.

IV. SWANK’s Position
This judicial review is a constitutional necessity. It is not a negotiation, nor a request—it is a demand for lawful correction. It affirms the legal standard disabled American citizens (and their children) are entitled to abroad and exposes the collapse of procedural integrity within local UK safeguarding bodies.

Westminster and RBKC cannot override legal jurisdiction by attrition. Not in print. Not in silence. Not under supervision.

You Gave the Ombudsman the Evidence. The Council Gave You More Harassment.

⟡ “Submitted to the Ombudsman. Ignored by the Offenders.” ⟡

An evidence bundle provided to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), documenting RBKC’s role in retaliatory safeguarding abuse and procedural misconduct.

Filed: 10 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LGO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-10_SWANK_LGO_Submission_RBKC_SupportingEvidenceBundle.pdf
This archive captures the exact materials sent to the LGO in support of a formal complaint against RBKC, highlighting cross-institutional collusion, email evidence, and safeguarding escalation patterns.

I. What Happened

In early May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an official complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning:

Misuse of PLO protocols
Procedural ambush tactics
Failure to recognise disability accommodations
Coordinated efforts between RBKC and Westminster to bypass medical and legal safeguards

This file served as the accompanying supporting document package, containing referenced communications, disability declarations, and patterns of retaliatory action.

II. What the Record Establishes

That the LGO was provided with full visibility of misconduct
That RBKC’s safeguarding activity was already under complaint
That Polly Chromatic submitted a legally and medically supported claim
That silence or inaction following this submission amounts to procedural complicity

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because oversight bodies are only neutral until they ignore the oversight.
Because submission to the LGO isn’t just a request —
it’s a trigger point, and when ignored, becomes institutional evidence itself.
Because RBKC was already on notice.

And now the public is too.

IV. Violations

Failure to uphold due process in safeguarding application
Ignoring formal disability disclosure and legal protections
Breach of public body accountability under LGO review
Unlawful child welfare escalation after formal complaints
Ignoring patterns of documented retaliation

V. SWANK’s Position

When you give them the documents,
and they give you more retaliation,
you stop calling it oversight.

You start calling it state-aligned harm.

This was a submission to prevent that.
They chose to proceed anyway.

Westminster Acknowledged Disability. Then Weaponised It.

⟡ “They Admitted It. Then They Punished Me For It.” ⟡

Kirsty Hornal acknowledged disability, communication barriers, and medical vulnerability — then proceeded to escalate.

Filed: 12 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CHRONOLOGY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-12_SWANK_ChronologyUpdate_DisabilityAcknowledged_ThenIgnored.pdf
This record documents written admission by Westminster social work lead Kirsty Hornal that Polly Chromatic was unwell, under psychiatric care, and unable to communicate verbally. These facts were later ignored during escalation of proceedings.

I. What Happened

Between 4–12 November 2024, a sequence of emails occurred between Polly Chromatic and Kirsty Hornal, during which:

A psychiatric assessment was confirmed and documented
The Child Protection Conference was postponed to accommodate medical status
Hornal acknowledged Polly’s need to communicate via email due to verbal disability
The tone was seemingly cooperative

Yet shortly after, support was withdrawn, accommodations were ignored, and further safeguarding pressures were applied.

II. What the Entry Establishes

Full institutional awareness of medical and psychiatric needs
Written agreement to accept email as the communication mode
Chronological evidence that retaliatory escalation followed this agreement
Foundational proof that later social work actions were not based on ignorance, but malice

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because once an institution acknowledges your illness and your access needs, they are bound by law to comply.
Because this shows that Westminster not only knew — but waited, then attacked.
Because SWANK doesn’t forget timelines.
It prints them.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Failure to uphold agreed reasonable adjustments
Harassment and retaliation against disabled parent after medical declaration
Children Act 1989 – misuse of conference scheduling to disadvantage the parent
Professional misconduct by Kirsty Hornal (Social Work England Code breach)

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not just a chronology update.
It is the receipt —
for every safeguarding escalation that followed.
They knew Polly Chromatic was sick.
They agreed she could use email.
And then they punished her for it.

Now that timeline is public.

They Misunderstood the Referral. On Purpose.

⟡ “They Misunderstood. Or Pretended To.” ⟡
If your rights aren’t being violated, it’s only because they haven’t read your email yet.

Filed: 24 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-35
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-24_SWANK_Email_Reid_DisabilityReferralCritique_AdjustmentFailure.pdf
This document captures a precise and devastating email from Polly Chromatic, challenging the continued refusal of Westminster safeguarding staff to honour — or comprehend — basic disability accommodations. Sent to consultant Dr. Philip Reid and shared with Gideon Mpalanyi and others, it lays bare the mechanics of bureaucratic gaslighting. The kind that says “reasonable adjustment” — and then delivers surveillance.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic reiterated what had already been filed, documented, and ignored:
– Verbal interaction is medically harmful
– Forced contact is retraumatising
– Written communication is legally and clinically required

She explained that Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown had failed to respect this.
Again.

She clarified that the safeguarding referrals were based not on concern — but on wilful misunderstanding of those adjustments.
She even noted: the clinicians meant support, not surveillance.
Westminster chose the opposite.

II. What the Email Establishes

That Polly had explicitly communicated her disability needs in both clinical and legal terms
That Westminster social workers weaponised those disclosures to escalate involvement
That Sam Brown’s interpretation of NHS referrals twisted adjustment requests into behavioural red flags
That Dr. Reid was directly informed of how his role was being misused
That Polly was not confused — she was documenting everything in real time

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because misunderstanding is not innocent when it’s repeated after a warning.
Because this wasn’t a failure to comprehend — it was a strategic refusal to adjust.
Because calling something a “referral” doesn’t change the fact it’s retaliation.
And because documenting the refusal to listen is part of how you win.

IV. Violations Identified

Disability Discrimination (Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 and 21)
Misuse of clinical communications for surveillance escalation
Breach of Article 8 ECHR (Right to family and private life)
Emotional injury through targeted disregard of medical protections
Procedural retaliation disguised as child protection

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly explained.
They nodded.
Then they escalated.

This wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was a choice.
To reinterpret support as suspicion.
To read care as consent.
To ignore “don’t call” and show up anyway.

And now, we show up too.
In court.
In files.
And in public.

They Documented Their Own Retaliation — And Emailed It to Me With a Smile

⟡ “They Said It Was ‘Support.’ I Called It a Medically Dangerous Trespass.” ⟡
An evidentiary email from Westminster Social Worker Rachel Pullen, documenting how lawful boundaries were ignored, medical harm was escalated, and staff rotation became a weapon — not a service.

Filed: 24 September 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/VISIT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-09-24_SWANK_Email_Westminster_RachelPullen_DisabilityRefusal_VisitRetaliation.pdf
Email from Rachel Pullen confirming Westminster’s refusal to honour lawful disability adjustments, continuation of unannounced visits, and reintroduction of known harmful staff despite medical risk and active complaint filings.

I. What Happened

In September 2024, while under active medical risk from asthma, dysphonia, and legal trauma, Polly Chromatic received repeated pressure and boundary-violating visits from Westminster Children’s Services.

This email, from Rachel Pullen, does the following:

Acknowledges the parent’s request for written-only contact
Ignores that request by announcing upcoming visits anyway
Names new social workers (e.g. Edward) and reintroduces Kirsty Hornal, despite prior complaints
Disregards disability as a reason for protection — instead, treating it as a delay tactic
Treats “support” as synonymous with access, presence, and verbal compliance

The harm was not incidental. It was structured — and documented.

II. What the Email Establishes

That written-only communication was acknowledged but not respected
That staff changes were made unilaterally, ignoring trauma-informed care
That active safeguarding complaints did not pause intrusion — they provoked it
That illness, legal protection, and parental request were reframed as opposition
That verbal coercion was procedurally prioritised over medical safety

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a disabled person documents their needs and a state agency responds by sending in more staff, what’s happening is no longer care — it’s control. This email is not a support record. It’s a procedural confession.

SWANK archived it to:

Record the moment Westminster officially ignored lawful disability accommodation
Preserve the institutional pattern of rotating unfamiliar staff despite protest
Show that intrusion intensified in direct proportion to complaint and resistance

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Refusal to make reasonable adjustments
• Section 27: Victimisation through continued contact
• Section 149: Ignoring public duty to eliminate discrimination
Children Act 1989 – Disruption of emotionally safe home and educational setting
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family life
• Article 3: Protection from degrading treatment
Social Work England Standards – Disrespect of boundaries, consent, and evidence
UNCRPD – Denial of accessible, voluntary, and medically safe service structure

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. It is state-led gaslighting with an appointment window. A social worker acknowledged disability needs — and then scheduled a verbal visit anyway. A parent rejected contact — and was sent more strangers. A child’s care was disrupted — and the council called that concern.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this as a written record of coercive service masquerading as care — and files it accordingly.

The Gas Leak They Called Mould. The Negligence They Called Support.

⟡ “It Wasn’t Mould. It Was Gas. And They Knew.” ⟡

An updated evidence bundle detailing severe environmental hazard (sewer gas) misclassified as mould, including documented Thames Water, housing, and council failures.

Filed: 14 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/THAMESWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-14_SWANK_ThamesWater_Evidence_SewerGasNegligence.pdf
This file contains records of environmental hazard reports, medical impacts, housing correspondence, and proof of professional mischaracterisation — forming the foundation of a health and safety negligence claim.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic reported serious illness and harm due to persistent, unaddressed sewer gas exposure. Evidence shows:

Multiple requests to Thames Water, housing providers, and council officials
Repeated misidentification of the hazard as “mould”
Health crises in a vulnerable family with disabled dependents
Complete failure to remediate or investigate properly

The consequences were both medical and legal — with a campaign of institutional deflection instead of correction.

II. What the Evidence Establishes

Clear professional awareness of gas-related environmental hazard
Willful avoidance of environmental assessment
Disability exacerbation due to environmental neglect
Pattern of dismissive or retaliatory responses to hazard reports
Failure by Thames Water and council landlords to act

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should have to prove their children are being poisoned before someone listens.
Because this was gas, not mould — and the difference could kill someone.
Because when Thames Water ignored it, so did everyone else.
And because now it’s not just in the archive —
it’s in the court file.

IV. Violations

Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Failure to address health hazard
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – Section 11 maintenance violations
Human Rights Act – Right to safe housing and family life
Council accountability failures under housing and safeguarding statutes
Professional misdiagnosis and obstruction of lawful reporting

V. SWANK’s Position

They didn’t just fail to fix the leak.
They failed to call it what it was.
And they punished Polly Chromatic for pointing it out.

Now everyone can see the gaslighting —
wasn’t metaphorical.

They Tried to Write Her Off. So She Wrote Them Down.

⟡ She Couldn't Speak — So She Wrote a Statement That Made Everyone Else Shut Up. ⟡
When the system weaponised disability, she weaponised the record.

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/STATEMENT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_WitnessStatement_DisabilityRetaliationSafeguarding.pdf
Primary witness statement detailing years of institutional misconduct, disability discrimination, and retaliatory safeguarding carried out by UK authorities against a disabled U.S. citizen mother and her four disabled children.

I. What Happened

This isn’t a complaint.
It’s a record.
Of retaliatory safeguarding tactics. Of medical dismissal. Of surveillance-style home visits.
Of social workers who violated disability law and dared to call it “support.”
Of a mother — non-verbal, disabled, and meticulous — who documented every unlawful breath they took in her direction.

This is her master statement — archived, timestamped, and unforgiving.

II. What the Statement Establishes

That UK safeguarding authorities targeted the mother after she published legal documentation online
That disability — both hers and her children’s — was routinely denied, erased, or reframed as neglect
That PLO escalation was retaliatory, not protective
That repeated legal violations were reported to regulatory bodies, with zero internal accountability

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when they ignore 1,000 pages of evidence, you give them 40 more.
Because a witness statement is not a cry for help — it’s a declaration of war.
And because in the kingdom of silence, documentation is dominion.

IV. Violations Identified

Disability Discrimination (Multiple Statutory Offences)
Retaliatory Safeguarding Abuse
Procedural Malice and Escalation Without Cause
Data Misuse and Surveillance Behaviour
Emotional Trauma and Educational Disruption of Disabled Children

V. SWANK’s Position

This document is not anecdotal. It is forensic.
It is not a narrative. It is a legal scaffolding.
And it does not ask to be believed — it demands to be read.
Because when institutions erase your voice, you write a record they can never delete.

When the Whole Team's Unfit, It’s Not a Workplace — It’s a Pattern.

⟡ How Many Social Workers Does It Take to Trigger a National Complaint? ⟡
Apparently: five. With supervision.

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_SWE_KirstyEtAl_FitnessToPractiseComplaint.pdf
A formal Fitness to Practise complaint to Social Work England against multiple Westminster-affiliated social workers, citing misconduct, procedural abuse, and statutory non-compliance.

I. What Happened

After a year of threats disguised as safeguarding, coercive escalation, falsified rationale, and coordinated institutional silencing —
the mother filed this:
A full complaint to Social Work England naming each actor, outlining their violations, and demanding removal.
The filing is not emotional. It is evidentiary.
The claims are not speculative. They are timestamped.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal, Edward Kendall, and other named actors demonstrated repeated unfitness to practice
That these actors used safeguarding to retaliate against disability, whistleblowing, and lawful documentation
That false allegations, coercive tactics, and refusal to accommodate disabilities were routine
That supervision was absent, complicit, or both

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because malpractice is not an accident when it's part of the plan.
Because silence from Social Work England is no longer legally defensible.
And because if a parent behaved like this, they’d already be in court.

IV. Violations Identified

Fitness to Practise Violations Across Multiple Social Workers
Disability Discrimination
Falsification of Risk Narrative
Retaliatory Safeguarding
Failure of Supervision and Oversight

V. SWANK’s Position

This is no longer about one mother.
It is about a team of professionals who used state power as a personal weapon.
It is about a regulatory body that can no longer pretend not to see.
They were named.
They were timestamped.
They are now on record.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

THE RETALIATORS' REGISTER

On the Criminal Referral of Hornal, Brown, and Newman for Procedural Retaliation and Safeguarding Misuse

I. What Happened

II. What the Filing Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Thank You for Acknowledging the Timeline. Your Resignation Will Suffice.”

⟡ An Email Acknowledgment That Managed to Say Nothing While Admitting Everything

⟡ METADATA

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Confirms

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Archive

⟡ SWANK London Ltd. Evidentiary Catalogue

The Notice They Refused to Heed: Sarah Newman, Safeguarding Retaliation, and the Formal End of Good Faith

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

“Judicial Review Has Been Filed. The Children Are American. The Silence Is Over.”

Filed Date: 24 June 2025

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. Applicant Identity and Protected Status

II. Grounds for Protective Relocation

1. Procedural Exile

2. Disability-Based Persecution

3. Child Protection and Citizenship Harm

4. Transnational Retaliation Pattern

III. Requested Oversight and Action

IV. Supporting Documentation

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ “Submitted to the Ombudsman. Ignored by the Offenders.” ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Record Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It