“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 Email Record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Email Record. Show all posts

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Yet shortly after, support was withdrawn, accommodations were ignored, and further safeguarding pressures were applied.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

⟡ 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:

She Missed the Visit — But Not the Power Play.


⟡ She Didn’t Show Up. Then She Shrugged It Off. ⟡
When the safeguarding visit fails to happen — but the blame lands on the family anyway.

Filed: 9 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-09_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_MissedVisit_ExcuseAndDismissal.pdf
An email exchange documenting that social worker Kirsty Hornal failed to attend a scheduled appointment, only to respond with flippant dismissal — despite prior notice, medical coordination, and legal vulnerability.

I. What Happened

The parent prepared for the visit.
Legal notices had been sent. Documentation was ready.
No one arrived.
Hours later, Kirsty Hornal replied — not with apology, not with explanation, but with bureaucratic banality.
No concern for the disruption. No regard for the trauma.
Just the institutional version of “oops.”

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a scheduled safeguarding visit was missed without notice

  • That the parent made all reasonable preparations under duress

  • That Kirsty Hornal replied as if no disruption occurred

  • That there was no acknowledgment of disability, impact, or professional obligation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when they ignore appointments, they’re “busy.”
But when you do, you’re “non-compliant.”
Because procedural negligence is not harmless — it’s destabilising.
And because missed visits become future allegations — unless you publish the record.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Professional Negligence in Safeguarding Scheduling

  • Failure to Provide Reasonable Notice of Non-Attendance

  • Emotional Harm via Institutional Disruption

  • Dismissal of Communication Needs and Medical Context

  • Use of Silence as Shield for Administrative Failure

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to miss the appointment and still hold the power.
You don’t get to forget your calendar and then critique the parent’s conduct.
This wasn’t a no-show.
It was a warning — of how care becomes control when it’s only enforced one way.

⟡ 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:

The Warning Came First. The Harm Came After.


⟡ “We Warned Them. They Ignored Us. Then They Retaliated.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Sends Formal Warning About Social Worker Conduct and Health Harm — CCs Legal and Medical Contacts, Including NHS and Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 17 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-17_SWANK_EmailChain_Nannette_CC_UrgentHealth_SocialWorkerConduct_Kirsty.pdf
Summary: Early warning email from Polly Chromatic forwarding serious health and safeguarding concerns to Sarah Newman, Kirsty Hornal, and legal-medical representatives. Sent the day before the police report.

I. What Happened

On 17 February 2025, Polly Chromatic (then using legal name) emailed a letter titled “Urgent Concerns Regarding Health and Social Worker Conduct” to:

– Sarah Newman (Westminster)
– Kirsty Hornal (named recipient)
– Legal counsel: Simon O’Meara (Blackfords), Laura Savage (Merali Beedle)
– NHS contact Philip Reid
– Forwarded with full context to Nannette Nicholson for external confirmation

The email stated that a letter outlining these concerns was attached — this letter became a precursor to both:

  • Your refusal notice

  • Your police complaint against Kirsty Hornal

II. What the Record Establishes

• A formal medical-safeguarding warning was submitted to senior social work staff and lawyers
• Kirsty Hornal was made aware of medical risk and institutional danger
• NHS and legal professionals were in the chain — making the Council’s silence actionable
• This message was sent 24 hours before the police complaint
• Timeline confirms PLO retaliation followed multiple lawful warnings

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because warnings aren’t rhetorical when lives are at risk.
Because it proves they knew — and escalated anyway.
Because the silence after this message wasn’t just cruel. It was coordinated neglect.

SWANK archives every ignored warning that turned into evidence.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that health warnings can be overwritten by protocol.
We do not accept that safeguarding starts after injury.
We do not accept that retaliation can masquerade as concern.

This wasn’t a help request. It was a last chance to act — and they didn’t.

⟡ 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