Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): Email Harassment

Showing posts with label Email Harassment. Show all posts

Email Threat of Supervision Order – Procedural Retaliation by Kirsty Hornal (WCC) | 31 May 2025

📮 Dispatch: Supervision by Threat

Subject: Kirsty Hornal’s Email of 31 May 2025
Filed Under: Procedural Retaliation, Email Harassment, Disability Discrimination

🕯 Summary:

On 31 May 2025, Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services issued a strikingly unprofessional communication declaring that Westminster Council was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

Not via legal service.
Not via formal case proceedings.
But via email. Casual. Unsanctioned. And profoundly coercive.

🎭 This Was Not Safeguarding. This Was Threat Theatre.

1. Retaliation, Thinly Veiled

At the time of this email, the recipient — Director of SWANK London Ltd. — had a live N1 claim against Westminster City Council and affiliated public bodies.

Hornal’s statement appears surgically timed to:

Intimidate the claimant during active legal action
Punish refusal to submit to informal CIN procedures
Preempt judicial or regulatory scrutiny by manufacturing a pseudo-crisis

This is not child protection. It is a procedural counter-attack.

2. Procedural Misconduct by Omission

A lawful application for a supervision order must be preceded by:

Multi-agency safeguarding discussions
Escalation through the Public Law Outline (PLO)
Clear, evidence-based risk thresholds

Ms Hornal bypassed all of this.
There was no lawful trigger.
Only retaliation — typed, sent, and CC’d.

3. Disability Discrimination (Weaponised)

The recipient has a documented written-only communication policy, grounded in medical evidence of:

Eosinophilic asthma
Muscle tension dysphonia
PTSD linked to state harassment

This email violated that adjustment, knowing it would destabilise the recipient.

To do so in the name of “child welfare” is a grotesque inversion of duty.

4. Breach of Legal and Professional Standards

The act violates multiple frameworks simultaneously:

Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding pathways
Equality Act 2010 – Disability adjustment ignored
Social Work England (SWE) Code of Ethics – Abuse of power
LGSCO Maladministration Standards – Procedural unfairness, lack of proportionality

5. A Documented Pattern

This is not an isolated episode.

Similar escalations have occurred precisely when:

Legal filings were made
Complaints were submitted
Medical boundaries were asserted

The evidence points to a systemic pattern of retaliatory safeguarding, well-documented in SWANK’s legal and police records.

📎 Concluding Position:

This is not “liaison.”
This is not “support.”
This is targeted coercion masquerading as child protection — emailed, unfiltered, and procedurally rotten.

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

Coercive Threat by Email from Westminster Children’s Services – Kirsty Hornal, 31 May 2025

🕯 A Dispatch Concerning the Judicial Whimsy of Ms Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 31 May 2025
Category: Bureaucratic Threats via Email, Volume IV

🎭 Scene: The Inbox

On the thirty-first day of May, I — Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd. — was treated to a performance of low theatre from one Ms Kirsty Hornal, bureaucrat of Westminster Children’s Services.

The email in question, unsolicited and gallingly timed, proclaimed she would:

“liaise with legal teams”
and consider
“whether this needs to be taken to court.”

A curious choice of phrasing for a civil servant supposedly engaged in safeguarding — not posturing as a litigant-in-training.

🖋 Context (with Embarrassing Precision)

Let the record reflect:

I have filed multiple police reports for harassment by Westminster social workers, including Ms Hornal.
I maintain a legally issued Written Communication Policy — necessitated by disability and on record with the Council.
This policy explicitly bars uninvited emails. Ms Hornal’s message was not just discourteous; it was unlawful.

💉 Consequence: Actual Harm

This missive, crafted in arrogance and dispatched in violation, triggered a PTSD episode and respiratory distress. This is not mere melodrama. It is documented injury.

⚖️ Legal & Logical Characterisation

This was not safeguarding. It was not “liaison.”
It was — by both spirit and structure — a coercive threat, dressed up in institutional lace. A bureaucratic attempt to frighten under the banner of “procedure.”

📂 Disposition

This incident is now formally recorded as part of an escalating dossier of retaliatory conduct, procedural misuse, and correspondence harassment by Westminster City Council.

The original email (with headers and metadata) is archived and may be produced upon lawful written request — not via phone, Teams, or carrier pigeon.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

Referral Resent. Refusal Reiterated.

⟡ SWANK Exhaustion Transcript: The Email Loop Samira Couldn’t Exit ⟡

9–18 February 2024

The Only “Concerning Pattern” Was the Inbox Behaviour of RBKC

I. Introduction: A Referral for a Referral Already Referred

RBKC Social Worker Samira Issa initiated repeated contact regarding a hospital referral from Chelsea and Westminster—based on an incident at St. Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024.

This incident had already been acknowledged.
Already discussed.
Already dismissed.

Polly Chromatic’s responses—initially courteous, later exhausted—formed a pattern of lawful refusal. The only pattern missed was the one in Samira’s inbox.

II. Highlights from the SWANK Transcript

9 February 2024 | 6:51 AM

“They are referring me for the same incident that I’ve already spoken with you about... I am concerned about your mental health... I have asthma and cannot communicate via phone.”

9 February 2024 | 2:59 PM

“Nothing new has happened and I do not have time.”

9 February 2024 | 3:04 PM

“I am spending time with my kids. I do not want to waste my time with you. Call a lawyer.”

13 February 2024 | Samira responds

Claims it’s a “separate incident.” Suggests another verbal meeting—again.

18 February 2024 | Polly responds

“We will be available at 4pm Wednesday 21st February.”
A brief opening—extended despite institutional exhaustion.

III. Email Behaviour as Procedural Misconduct

Across this correspondence:

Samira claims to have read previous emails
Then requests the same thing again
Refers the same incident as if it were new
Ignores explicit references to asthma-related verbal restrictions
Ignores repeated use of the word harassment

Meanwhile, Polly had:

✔️ Provided documentation
✔️ Asserted her legal representation
✔️ Declined verbal contact on medical grounds
✔️ Replied in writing—more than once

This is not miscommunication.
It’s a refusal to accept written autonomy.

IV. When “We Need to Speak” Becomes Systemic Gaslighting

This was not safeguarding.
It was performative dominance through forced conversation.
It was a refusal to read in order to retain power.

Polly said:

“Please refrain from contacting me again.”

RBKC replied:

“Would you be willing to meet me in person?”

That isn’t misreading.
It’s administrative gaslighting by design.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy