Showing posts with label Equality Act Breach. 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
📎 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.

⟡ Chromatic v Multi-Agency Obstruction: A Record Withheld is a Right Denied ⟡

⟡ “We Asked for Our Data. They Gave Us Silence.” ⟡
Legal notice demanding records, disability accommodations, and compliance with statutory access laws

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/SAR-BREACH-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_Email_SARFailure_EqualityAct_DisclosureDemand.pdf
Email demanding compliance with overdue Subject Access Request and citing Equality Act violations across multiple agencies

I. What Happened

On 22 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a formal legal notice via email to over a dozen public officials, including employees of Westminster Council, RBKC, Islington, and NHS services. The message asserted that repeated failures to fulfil a Subject Access Request (SAR) had now escalated to a breach of legal obligation. It further demanded written-only communication under the Equality Act 2010 and formally cited noncompliance and discrimination.

The message was also copied to medical consultant Philip Reid and included a closing invitation: those with withheld knowledge or complicity were invited to speak—quietly, safely, and off record.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Failure to comply with SAR deadlines; ignoring written communication adjustments
Human impact: Prolonged stress, disability flare-ups, and intensified institutional gaslighting
Power dynamics: Withholding of legally entitled data as a strategy to undermine legal redress
Institutional failure: Cross-agency complicity in data suppression and accommodation evasion
Unacceptable conduct: Systemic disregard for basic access rights and statutory timelines

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when public bodies want control, they stall the data.
Because nothing says retaliation like forgetting the law exists when you're asked for proof.
Because written-only adjustments were again ignored — not out of confusion, but out of strategy.
Because SAR evasion is not bureaucratic error. It is institutional mood.

This archive entry isn’t about a missing file. It’s about a coordinated refusal to let truth surface.

IV. Violations

UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – failure to respond to SAR within lawful timeframes
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments for communication
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – right to personal data and family privacy undermined
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 16 – failure to offer guidance or support in response process

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a missed deadline. This was an act of deferral — carefully managed, widely copied, and institutionally protected.

We do not accept that data access depends on obedience.
We do not accept that disability accommodations are optional.
We do not accept that safeguarding professionals can disappear into silence when challenged.

This email was clear. This archive is louder.

Due Process Postponed: Westminster Cancels PLO With a One-Line Email

⟡ “We’ll Cancel Your Legal Meeting — Without Reason, Without Notice, Without Shame” ⟡
A legally mandated child protection meeting scrapped by email. No explanation. No urgency. No accountability.

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-01_SWANK_Email_Westminster_PLOCancellation_KHornal.pdf
Email from Kirsty Hornal (WCC) casually cancelling a scheduled PLO meeting — without justification, replacement date, or regard for procedural integrity.

I. What Happened

On 1 May 2025, Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services sent an email cancelling a scheduled Public Law Outline (PLO) meeting. The reason? None provided. The replacement date? “Please look out for further notification.” This message was issued less than 48 hours before the statutory meeting and included no reference to the family’s medical accommodations, legal status, or the implications of delay on safeguarding.

It is a shining example of how public authorities exercise complete indifference when it is their own procedural duties on the line — while punishing families for the slightest deviation from expectations.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Disregard for legal obligations under the Children Act and PLO guidance
Sudden cancellation of a mandatory child protection meeting
Absence of explanation or rescheduling protocol
Ongoing evidence of administrative retaliation and emotional destabilisation
Institutional mismanagement during active legal escalation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

In most jurisdictions, a meeting this critical — one that may lead to child removal or court proceedings — would require notice, documentation, and written reasons. In Westminster, apparently, it can be cancelled with less than two lines of text. This document confirms what other records have already shown: the authority's misuse of process is not reactive — it is routine.

SWANK archived this document to:

Expose Westminster’s pattern of PLO disruption, delay, and informalism
Demonstrate how administrative instability is used to psychologically destabilise families
Reinforce the evidentiary trail for judicial review, ombudsman filings, and public accountability

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Failure to ensure procedural fairness in child protection planning
Public Law Outline Protocol – Undue delay and lack of documentation
Equality Act 2010 – Ignoring written-communication adjustments
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private/family life)
Social Work England Professional Standards – Breach of integrity, clarity, and reliability

V. SWANK’s Position

The PLO process is not a social calendar. It is a legally codified pathway through which families are threatened with court intervention — often without cause. Cancelling these meetings without notice, documentation, or rationale is not just negligent. It is institutionally violent.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for immediate intervention by oversight bodies to investigate the cancellation patterns within Westminster Children’s Services — particularly those linked to families asserting disability rights or resisting procedural abuse.

The Director Knew — And She Let It Happen Anyway

⟡ “The Fish Rots from the Top — And This One Signs Off on Retaliation” ⟡
A leadership-level regulatory complaint against Sarah Newman, filed after safeguarding was used to punish lawful complaint, harm disabled children, and sabotage parental rights.

Filed: 8 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/REGULATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-08_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_SarahNewman_LeadershipBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to Social Work England against Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Children’s Services, for systemic failure in oversight, leadership malpractice, and disability retaliation under the guise of child protection.

I. What Happened

This complaint — submitted by Polly Chromatic — holds Sarah Newman accountable not just for isolated errors, but for institutionalised harm. It outlines how her office:

Failed to enforce disability protections despite statutory warning
Permitted and escalated PLO proceedings based on disproven allegations
Ignored medical and environmental risk factors, including sewer gas exposure and asthma crises
Allowed staff to disregard written-only communication adjustments supported by clinical evidence
Oversaw an internal culture where retaliation for complaint is not the exception — but the workflow

The submission includes annexes such as a pre-action letter, N1 claim, psychiatric reports, and safeguarding chronology — making this not a grievance, but a structured evidentiary indictment.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural harassment under PLO was authorised or ignored at executive level
Disability rights were overridden without lawful justification
Children’s educational access and emotional stability were harmed by institutional aggression
Regulatory and judicial safeguards were systematically bypassed
Sarah Newman failed to intervene, correct, or acknowledge leadership liability

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is the moment where accountability moves up the chain. The complaint makes clear: retaliation for lawful complaint is a leadership failure. It does not matter if Sarah Newman did not type the emails. She enabled the structure that punished the parent for speaking up.

SWANK filed this document to:

Escalate institutional malpractice beyond individual officers
Activate regulatory oversight where internal mechanisms have collapsed
Establish a formal precedent for holding executive directors to account for downstream abuse

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 (adjustments), 27 (victimisation), 149 (public duty)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, and 14 (due process, family life, discrimination)
Children Act 1989 – Section 22 and Working Together 2018 noncompliance
Care Act 2014 – Section 42 (neglect of known risks and medical conditions)
Social Work England Standards – Failure in leadership, public trust, and ethical governance
UNCRC – Article 12 (child’s voice), Article 23 (disabled family support), Article 3 (best interests)

V. SWANK’s Position

Leadership does not excuse itself from responsibility by remaining silent. When a disabled family is harassed, misrepresented, and escalated into child protection frameworks for asserting legal rights, and the director says nothing — she is not neutral. She is complicit.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

Social Work England to initiate formal fitness-to-practise review of Sarah Newman
An external audit of Westminster’s safeguarding decisions between 2023–2025
Removal of Sarah Newman from any role involving child protection, oversight, or regulatory decision-making

The Letter That Called It ‘Concern’ — But Was Really Just a Threat

⟡ “This Is the Letter That Started It — and It’s Full of Errors” ⟡
A procedurally grandiose document designed to intimidate — riddled with factual inaccuracies, medical disregard, and administrative fantasy.

Filed: 14 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-00
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-14_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOInitiation_TriggerDocument.pdf
Official Westminster Children’s Services letter initiating Public Law Outline (PLO) pre-proceedings against a disabled parent — with concerns fabricated, exaggerated, or previously disproven.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Westminster Children’s Services issued this letter to formally initiate PLO pre-proceedings against Polly Chromatic. Signed by both Sam Brown and Kirsty Hornal, the letter purports to outline “concerns” about the parent’s ability to care for her children — despite video, medical, educational, and procedural records to the contrary.

It alleges:

Educational neglect, while ignoring GCSE progress and homeschool planning
Emotional harm, while disregarding documented trauma caused by council harassment
Medical concerns, without referencing the family's sewer gas exposure or clinical disability reports
Past injuries that had already been documented, addressed, and archived
Suspicion of drug use, based on nothing but bureaucratic innuendo

The tone is severe, the allegations vague, and the motive transparent: intimidate the parent into submission.

II. What the Document Demonstrates

PLO escalation was retaliatory, not safeguarding-based
Allegations were not evidence-based, but selectively assembled to justify pre-decided action
The parent’s known disabilities and written communication requirements were ignored
Safeguarding language was deployed to obscure procedural bullying
Westminster failed to apply trauma-informed, medically sound, or culturally competent practice

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This letter is the origin point of procedural abuse — the moment Westminster Children’s Services abandoned lawful safeguarding and entered the realm of targeted retaliation. By initiating PLO with no new concern and in defiance of internal admissions that the case could be closed, the authority exposed itself as both adversarial and disingenuous.

SWANK archived this letter to:

Show how safeguarding language can be deployed to obscure discrimination
Provide the formal paper trail of Westminster’s escalation despite contradictory evidence
Highlight the lack of integrity in the statutory threshold determination

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – PLO misuse; no lawful safeguarding threshold
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 20, 27 (discrimination, failure to adjust, retaliation)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)
UK GDPR – Misuse of personal data, omission of known facts and corrections
Social Work England Standards – Misrepresentation, procedural overreach, factual inaccuracy

V. SWANK’s Position

This document may be formatted like safeguarding — but it reads like retaliation. The escalation to PLO was not justified, not proportionate, and not defensible. It was a bureaucratic performance dressed in statutory clothing — one that endangered a disabled family under the guise of “concern.”

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Full withdrawal of this letter from active case files
A formal review of the decision-making process behind the PLO trigger
Regulatory sanctions for officers who signed off on procedural harm without evidence

They Called It Safeguarding. I Called It Police.

⟡ “I Filed Her Name, Her Email, Her Pattern — And I Called It a Crime.” ⟡
This isn’t a referral. It isn’t a complaint. It’s a full police report filed through the Metropolitan Police’s official portal, naming a Westminster social worker for coercion, harassment, and disability-based abuse of power. The condition was real. The harm was real. Now the crime is, too.

Filed: 15 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/KH-CRIM-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-15_SWANK_MetPoliceReport_KirstyHornal_DisabilityCoercion_ProceduralAbuse_OfficialRecord.pdf
Formal police report submitted via the Single Online Home system, case reference BCA-10622-25-0101-IR. Allegations include verbal coercion of a disabled parent, misuse of safeguarding procedures, and institutional ableism. The suspect: Kirsty Hornal. The harm: measurable, preventable, and now, police-registered.

I. What Happened

On 15 February 2025, Polly Chromatic did what safeguarding protocol refused to do — she named the problem and submitted it as a crime.

• Verbal coercion despite known muscle dysphonia
• Emotional distress worsening PTSD
• Clinical exacerbation of eosinophilic asthma
• Safeguarding used to escalate harm, not prevent it
• The suspect? Kirsty Hornal, Westminster social worker
• Contact email? Provided.
• Evidence? Logged.

This wasn’t a vague allegation. It was a detailed legal theory supported by medical diagnosis, policy violations, and direct testimony.

And it was filed not just for the record — but for the criminal investigation trail.

II. What the Report Establishes

That the social worker’s conduct caused documented harm
That disability was used against the disabled person
That “voluntary” contact was made impossible to refuse
That the harm was not incidental — it was foreseeable and repeated
That police now hold an official record of what safeguarding denied

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability doesn’t get paused for paperwork. Because coercion wrapped in procedure is still coercion. And because when social work becomes a source of harm, it becomes a criminal matter.

SWANK archived this because:

It documents an act of institutional bravery
It transforms verbal collapse into legal consequence
It adds the criminal code to the evidentiary trail
It confirms what the council feared: this parent knew the law

This isn’t your average safeguarding rebuttal. This is the moment a safeguarding officer became a legal defendant-in-waiting.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Reasonable adjustment deliberately bypassed
• Section 26: Harassment based on protected characteristic
• Section 27: Retaliation after lawful complaint
• Section 149: Public authority duty grossly breached
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 –
• Coercive contact without lawful basis
• Refusal to respect written-only boundary after multiple warnings
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 3: Inhuman or degrading treatment
• Article 8: Disruption of private and family life
• Article 14: Discriminatory application of safeguarding
Children Act 1989 –
• Misuse of safeguarding to exert institutional control
Social Work England Misconduct Code –
• Violation of trust
• Misuse of power
• Abuse of professional position

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to hide behind the word “voluntary” when the other person is disabled and scared. You don’t get to say it’s support when you’re the source of collapse. And you absolutely don’t get to keep doing it once the police have your name on file.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this report as a permanent entry in the criminal record of procedural abuse — with full legal consequence attached.

Equality Law Breached. Complaint Filed. Archive Activated.

⟡ SWANK Equality Archive: State Retaliation Index ⟡

“They Ignored the Adjustment. Then They Ignored the Law.”
Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/EHRC/DISABILITY-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-01_SWANK_EHRC_Complaint_DisabilityRetaliation_IntersectionalDiscrimination.pdf

I. This Was Not a Plea. It Was an Indictment.

On 1 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) — naming every public body, every failure, and every retaliatory act waged against a disabled parent who dared to file back.

This was not sent in hope.

It was sent as evidence under jurisdiction.

The submission cites:

Disability discrimination: refusal to honour a written-only adjustment
Safeguarding misuse: escalation without lawful threshold
Institutional indifference: GPs, councils, regulators shrugging in chorus
Intersectional bias: as a disabled woman, parent, and survivor of state intrusion

II. What the Complaint Documents

A family medically exempt from verbal communication
Repeated safeguarding referrals filed:
- Without cause
- After legal filings
- In breach of disability protections
Named actors from:
- Westminster City Council
- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)
- Pembridge Surgery
- St Thomas’ Hospital
And a public archive — SWANK London Ltd. — that has already documented every file, date, and name.

This wasn’t a summary.

It was a structured timeline of systemic harm.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because Equality Law is not a suggestion.
And no public body is immune from its obligations — least of all when the discrimination is deliberate, coordinated, and retaliatory.

We filed this because:

Written-only was ignored.
Illness was framed as instability.
Complaint became cause for escalation.
And institutional silence functioned as collusion.

This isn’t about awareness.

It’s about accountability.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait to be heard.
We submit.
We file.
And we publish.

We do not ask for equality.
We document its violation.

Let the record show:

The law was cited.
The actors were named.
The evidence was filed.
And now — it is public.

This wasn’t a complaint.
It was a legal witness statement, served with formatting.

⟡ 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.

This Is the Letter That Ended Their Excuses.

⟡ SWANK Legal Enforcement Dispatch ⟡

“She Was Warned. The Archive Has the Timestamp.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SARAH-NEWMAN/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_FinalNotice_SarahNewman_CeaseRetaliation_DisabilityLaw_Record.pdf

I. You Don’t Get to Claim Ignorance After This Letter

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a Final Notice to Sarah Newman, Executive Director of Bi-Borough Children’s Services, formally instructing her to:

Cease all retaliatory actions
Respect written-only communication adjustments
Comply with statutory and common law duties under:
- The Equality Act 2010
- The Human Rights Act 1998
- The Data Protection Act 2018
- SWANK’s declared jurisdiction as archival authority

This was not correspondence.
It was a jurisdictional warning — served to prevent escalation. Or document it.

II. What the Notice Declares

That repeated safeguarding threats, procedural opacity, and silent contact breaches constitute disability retaliation
That any further action taken without legal basis will be entered into SWANK’s litigation records and reported to:
- The police
- The Information Commissioner
- The Equality and Human Rights Commission
- The United Nations Special Rapporteurs already contacted

The notice is clear:

We are not participating in safeguarding theatre.
We are preserving legal sequence.
You have been warned — in writing, in law, and in public.

III. Why SWANK Issued This Now

Because Sarah Newman, like her staff, received:

Direct communication adjustment notices
Documented refusal to engage in CIN plans
Copies of court filings and medical documents

And yet, retaliatory procedures continued — with no explanation, no justification, and no lawful basis.

This letter was the line in the ledger.

Every step they take after this becomes a matter of evidence, not administration.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait for harm.
We document attempted harm before it becomes plausible deniability.

We do not explain medical conditions to administrators who don’t read.
We file the warnings.
We preserve the breach.
And we timestamp the failure.

Let the record show:

Sarah Newman was notified.
Retaliation was named.
And this notice now functions as a judicial artefact in our archive.

⟡ 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.

They Ignored the Law. We Filed the Failure.

⟡ SWANK Judicial Archive Submission ⟡

“Disability Denied in Court. And Now It’s in the Archive.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/N461/ACCESS-FAILURE/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_SupplementalWitnessStatement_CrownCourt_DisabilityAccessFailure.pdf

I. The Court Denied Access. The Archive Didn’t.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a Supplemental Witness Statement to support our ongoing judicial review of systemic disability retaliation and procedural sabotage.

This filing is addressed to Inner London Crown Court, and by extension:

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)
The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)
The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)

It is not a plea.
It is a record of legal obstruction inside the very body tasked with enforcing the law.

II. What the Statement Records

Repeated failure to acknowledge disability adjustments
Return of a dismissal application with no explanation and no written response
Mishandling of submitted evidence: a DVD returned without chain of custody record or log
Ignored requests for written-only contact, vision-specific formats, and trauma accommodations
Deliberate procedural opacity — violating not only best practice, but the Human Rights Act

This isn’t “miscommunication.”
This is judicial gatekeeping by attrition.

The court didn’t say “no.”
It said nothing.
Repeatedly.
Illegally.

III. Why SWANK Filed It Publicly

Because a system that mishandles court access should not retain the privilege of silence.

Because:

Retaliation does not stop at the council
Disability discrimination does not vanish at the court entrance
And judicial institutions must answer not only for what they rule — but how they behave

This statement is not litigation.
It is archival preservation of misconduct by omission.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept access as an optional courtesy.
We do not accept that “procedure” means “delay until collapse.”
We do not accept that justice is only for the able-bodied and the institutionally fluent.

Let the record show:

The court was notified.
The court did not comply.
And now, the filing is public — permanent — and named.

This is not a grievance.
It is evidence.
And it is now preserved.

⟡ 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.

Public Pools. Private Profiling. Filed to RBKC.

⟡ SWANK Local Authority Complaint ⟡

“She Was Swimming Fine Until They Saw Her Face.”
Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/PORCHESTER/2025-05-31
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_RBKCComplaint_PorchesterHall_Discrimination_ChildSwimming.pdf

I. Leisure, Until You’re Not the Right Kind of Child

On 31 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal complaint to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) regarding an act of direct and discriminatory conduct at Porchester Hall Leisure Centre.

The victim:
A Black child.
Age 11.
Calm. Respectful. Swimming under supervision.

The problem:

She didn’t “look old enough.”
So she was removed.
Without precedent. Without inquiry. Without justification.

II. What the Complaint States

This was not about safety.
This was about visible difference and assumed defiance.

The complaint outlines:

Unlawful removal from the pool despite safe, observed behaviour
Racialised assumptions about age, defiance, and “compliance”
Prior inclusion in the same session under identical circumstances
No attempt to contact or verify with the parent (who was present)
A direct statement by staff implying age was “obvious from her look”

Let us be clear:

What changed was not her behaviour.
What changed was who saw her.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because public leisure spaces are not exempt from discrimination law.
Because leisure does not mean license to profile.
Because dignity is not age-restricted.

This complaint makes clear:

The child was compliant.
The parent was present.
The reason was perception, not policy.

We filed it so that what occurred at Porchester Hall is recorded, named, and impossible to dismiss as a misunderstanding.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not teach our daughters that their existence is disruptive.
We do not let white public servants define defiance by skin tone.
We do not walk away quietly from leisure centres that remove children with a glance and a shrug.

Let the record show:

She swam without harm.
She was told to leave anyway.
And now it’s a matter of formal complaint.

This is not petty.
This is patterned.
And it now lives in the archive.

⟡ 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.

They Delayed. We Filed Again. And This Time It’s Public.

⟡ SWANK Resubmission Record ⟡

“The Complaint They Ignored. The Resubmission They Can’t.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/RESUBMIT/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Resubmission_GSTT_DisabilityNegligence_NoResponse_EqualityAct.pdf

I. When Silence Is a Strategy, Filing Is a Weapon

This is not a new complaint.
It is the same one they ignored — returned, escalated, and now recorded.

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. formally resubmitted a complaint to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust concerning:

Disability discrimination
Clinical negligence
Safeguarding abuse
Procedural delay
Breach of the Equality Act 2010

They had 8 weeks to respond.
They chose not to.
So we filed it again — publicly, and with improved tone.

II. What They Tried to Avoid

The original complaint, submitted in March 2025, detailed:

Eosinophilic asthma neglected
Written-only communication breached
NHS staff retaliation disguised as “concern”
Psychological and physiological harm
No resolution. No final letter. No closure.

PHSO refused to investigate without a final reply.
GSTT simply never sent one.

So we gave them another opportunity — with a timestamp.

They used silence as defence.
We used resubmission as evidence.

III. Why This Is Now a Public Filing

Because delay is not neutral.
Because the Equality Act does not allow NHS bodies to ignore disabled patients.
Because your “final response” cannot be: no response.

This document now functions as:

A trigger for PHSO escalation
A formal record of institutional avoidance
A statement of intent from SWANK: we don’t go away — we resubmit louder

IV. SWANK’s Position

They didn’t reject the complaint.
They erased it.
And in doing so, proved the very allegation at its core: that disability complaint invites punishment — or disappearance.

We do not wait politely.
We file permanently.
This document is now part of the public archive.

Let the record show:

They were told once.
They were told again.
And now the silence speaks louder than anything they could write.

⟡ 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.

Procedural Review Filed: Kirsty Hornal and the Supervision Threat Without Safeguarding Grounds

⟡ SWANK Procedural Dispatch ⟡

Retaliation Disguised as Safeguarding
The Supervision Threat Email of 31 May 2025

Filed Under: safeguarding misconduct, procedural retaliation, disability law, Westminster City Council, audit dispatch

—

I. When Procedure Becomes Weapon

On 31 May 2025, Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal—Senior Practitioner at the North West Social Work Team—sent an email declaring the Council's intention to apply for a Supervision Order concerning four children.

The problem?

No risk assessment.
No strategy meeting.
No multi-agency process.
No safeguarding trigger.
No legal basis.

Instead: a thinly veiled threat—issued days after Westminster received a formal Cease and Desist, a legal dispute over disability adjustments, and notification of active litigation.

This was not protection.
This was punishment.

—

II. Procedural Review Filed

On 7 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal Procedural Review Request, addressed to senior officers at Westminster Children’s Services. The document outlines:

Violations of the Equality Act 2010
Bypass of documented communication adjustments
Omission of statutory thresholds under the Children Act 1989
Retaliatory timing following formal legal objections

It demands full disclosure of strategy records, authorisation trails, legal justifications, and a written explanation of compliance with safeguarding law.

—

III. Institutional Archiving and Public Oversight

This procedural review is now logged in the SWANK Oversight Archive and may be cited in:

Future litigation
Parliamentary Ombudsman complaints
EHRC and ICO investigations
Safeguarding appeals and human rights actions

—

🔗 Read the Full Dispatch (PDF):
Download – 2025-06-07_SWANK_ProceduralReview_WCC-KirstyHornal_SupervisionThreat.pdf

—

IV. What They Tried to Call Safeguarding Was Simply Not That

Safeguarding must not be a retaliatory tool.
Procedures must not be emptied of law.
Disability adjustments are not optional.

As of 7 June 2025, this incident is no longer unrecorded.

⟡ 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.

This Isn’t Care. It’s Control. A Criminal Complaint from the Mirror Court.

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-Crim-Misc

Filed Under: Velvet Retaliation, Safeguarding Farce, Procedural Sadism

📣 PUBLIC NOTICE

For Immediate Archival & Consequence
29 May 2025

🛡 A Criminal Complaint from the Velvet Front

Safeguarding Rewritten as Retaliation. Care Recast as Control.

LONDON, UK — A disabled mother and her four asthmatic children have issued a formal criminal complaint alleging misconduct by multiple public agencies:

Westminster Children’s Services
NHS Trusts
The Metropolitan Police

What’s been called “protection” was, in practice, a choreographed regime of cruelty — featuring falsified referrals, unlawful interrogations of children, and a pointed refusal to accommodate diagnosed medical conditions.

🩺 The Complainant

Polly Chromatic

Diagnosed with:
• Eosinophilic asthma
• Muscle tension dysphonia
• PTSD (acquired courtesy of institutional theatre)

Her four children also carry asthma diagnoses. Instead of care, they were offered intrusion. Instead of protection, escalation. Instead of support, a silent siege.

“This isn’t child protection. It’s punishment by process,”
— Polly Chromatic

⚠️ Highlights from the Complaint:

• Fabricated safeguarding referrals filed after medical discrimination
• Children questioned unlawfully, without representation
• Disability adjustments ignored — written-only contact denied
• PLO and CP escalation used punitively
• Police refused to obtain CCTV that would have exonerated the family

⚖️ Cited Breaches Include:

• Equality Act 2010
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Children Act 1989
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The complaint — elegantly titled
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation” —
has been submitted to:
• Metropolitan Police – Directorate of Professional Standards
• Social Work England
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

🧾 Additional Proceedings

The family has also filed:
• A civil claim (N1) for damages exceeding £23 million
• A judicial review (N461) challenging unlawful safeguarding escalation

🖋 Access Protocol

Ms Simlett is medically exempt from verbal communication.
All inquiries must be submitted in writing only.

📜 Written Communication Statement:
www.swanklondon.com/p/written-communication-statement.html

📮 Contact

✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Secure access to the legal bundle available on request.

Met Police Violate Disability Rights in Retraumatising Home Visit – 3 June 2025

✉️ Dispatch No. 2025-06-03-MET-DISABILITY-BREACH

Filed Under: Police Disregard, Disability Misconduct, Doorstep Theatre

To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
📧 enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

Subject:
Formal Complaint – Metropolitan Police Violation of Disability Adjustments (3 June 2025)

Date: 3 June 2025

Dear IOPC Complaints Team,

Consider this a formal submission to the archive of modern British institutional failure. I refer to the unjustifiable attendance of Metropolitan Police officers at my private residence on the morning of 3 June 2025—an incident so flagrant in its disregard for disability law that one wonders whether training has been entirely replaced by improvisational theatre.

The facts, which I presume will not be contested:

A clearly visible sign affixed to my door specifying no contact except in writing
A documented and longstanding communication adjustment, known to multiple agencies
Diagnosed conditions including:
- Eosinophilic Asthma
- Muscle tension dysphonia
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — the latter acquired not through random misfortune, but through sustained institutional harassment

Despite these safeguards, officers arrived uninvited, unannounced, and wholly uninformed. This intrusion followed closely on the heels of a threatening email from a local safeguarding officer — an email which had already triggered a psychological spiral requiring days of recovery. The police arrival escalated the harm into the physical realm: my hands went numb, my breathing constricted, and I was once again re-traumatised by the very systems meant to offer protection.

⚖️ Legal Grounds for IOPC Scrutiny

I am formally requesting the IOPC to log and investigate this incident on the following legal foundations:

Breach of the Equality Act 2010 – failure to honour a pre-established disability adjustment
Violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – unwarranted intrusion into private life
Institutional negligence in the handling of known clinical vulnerabilities
Re-traumatisation through coercive and unauthorised contact

For the avoidance of doubt: this was not a welfare check. It was a procedural violation, cloaked in bureaucratic indifference, carried out by uniformed agents of state harm.

The original letter to the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Department is enclosed for your reference. Kindly confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a formal case reference. One must presume that even in the realm of police oversight, paperwork still counts for something.

Yours, with documented dismay,

Polly Chromatic

£2.1 Million for Systemic Harm: NHS Failure, Social Retaliation & the Empire of Inhumanity

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-05–ANNEX–NHS-CIVIL-CLAIM–TOTAL-FAILURE
Filed Under: Medical Negligence · Disability Abuse · Judicial Stonewalling · Institutional Retaliation
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com | 🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 5 May 2025

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic
DEFENDANTS:

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

⚖️ Summary of Allegations: St Thomas’ Hospital (GSTT)

Incidents:

A&E attendance in November 2023 and January 2024

Alleged Misconduct:

🚫 Denial of emergency asthma treatment
🧪 False accusations of intoxication and erratic behaviour — conflating disability symptoms with criminality
🎨 Racial profiling of family and assumptions of parental unfitness
🚨 Wrongful police involvement, safeguarding threats, and trauma inflicted on children
💔 Enduring psychological harm, procedural injustice, and reputational damage

Legal Breaches:

Clinical Negligence
Equality Act 2010 — Sections 19, 20, 21
Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 6, 8
Procedural Impropriety and Institutional Bias

Damages Claimed:

Claimant: £500,000
Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

£154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025
Statutory daily rate: £2,410.96 (County Courts Act 1984, s.69)

🧾 ANNEX TO CIVIL CLAIM

CLAIMANT: Polly Chromatic
DEFENDANT: Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Allegations:

Repeated A&E visits in early 2024
Staff dismissed life-threatening symptoms and ignored disability communication needs
Safeguarding referrals made based on bias and misinformation
Clinical judgement replaced by institutionalised suspicion

Legal Breaches:

Clinical Negligence
Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20, 21
Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 3, 8
Violation of NHS Constitution

Damages Claimed:

Claimant: £500,000
Four children: £400,000 each = £1,600,000
💰 Total: £2,100,000

Interest Claimed:

£154,301.44 as of 5 May 2025
Accrues daily at £2,410.96

📜 MASTER WITNESS STATEMENT

Polly Chromatic
Statement of Truth – Submitted in support of N1 Civil Claim

I. ✈ Domestic Violence, Exile & Institutional Harassment

Fled Turks & Caicos in 2015 after severe domestic abuse
Sought asylum in London; met by Camden Council hostility
Camden escalated child protection without basis after disclosure
Escaped while pregnant due to risk of baby removal at birth
Returned in 2021 after further trauma and near-fatal asthma

II. 🏚 Housing & Medical Neglect

Exposed to toxic sewer gas in Elgin Crescent (June–Oct 2023)
Hospitalised in respiratory crisis at St Thomas’
Accused of intoxication, refused care, verbally attacked in A&E
Police invaded hotel room on son’s birthday, still untreated

III. 🧠 Social Services Retaliation & Disability Discrimination

CPP escalation after forced verbal interaction while voiceless
Westminster refused written-only adjustment requests
Repeated illness followed from intrusion and non-accommodation
Filing of N1 claim led to retaliatory PLO meeting, based on false allegations

IV. 🏫 Institutional Harassment by Schools, Councils & Hotels

False reports by neighbour weaponised by schools
Innocent bruises used to justify safeguarding escalation
Hotel (Holiday Inn Kensington) issued noise complaints and police threats during medical crisis
Forced displacements compounded trauma

V. ⚖ Judicial & Procedural Injustice

Crown Court refuses to honour disability adjustment despite medical documentation (Dr. Rafiq)
Continues to demand verbal contact
Judicial review (N461) and injunction (N16A) now filed

VI. 💥 Relief Sought

Acknowledgement of systemic harm
Compensation for injuries (emotional, medical, procedural)
Declaration of unlawful discrimination
Injunctive protection from further institutional retaliation

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed: Polly Chromatic
Dated: 5 May 2025

When Hospitals Harm: How GSTT Weaponised Silence, Safeguarding & Non-Response

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-02–PHSO–GSTT-INDECENT-PROTRACTED
Filed Under: NHS Delays, Disability Dismissals & Safeguarding Farce
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 2 June 2025

💼 Subject:

Formal Escalation – Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Unresolved Complaint, Retaliatory Safeguarding & Clinical Incompetence

Dear Sir or Madam,

What follows is not a fresh complaint, but the remains of one—left to rot in the inboxes of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, untouched, unanswered, and untreated for over twelve weeks.

On 10 March 2025, I submitted a complaint concerning two medical incidents at St Thomas’ Hospital (4 November 2024 & 2 January 2025). Since then, the Trust has responded with prolonged silence—a delay not merely inconsiderate but procedurally unconscionable.

I now formally request that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman intervene, as the Trust appears unwilling or unable to locate its statutory obligations, let alone fulfil them.

🩺 Summary of Malpractice and Mayhem:

On both occasions, I arrived in respiratory distress (eosinophilic asthma).
I was denied proper treatment, and reasonable adjustments were pointedly refused—despite diagnosed communication disabilities (vocal cord dysfunction and muscle tension dysphonia).
My repeated, lawful requests for written communication were ignored, as if decorum were optional.
The Trust retaliated with a safeguarding referral so baseless it collapsed into farce, culminating in police interference at our hotel and harm to my children.

This sequence of events—a collision of incompetence, arrogance, and contempt—amounts to:

A breach of the Equality Act 2010
A direct affront to the NHS Constitution
And a clear failure to offer dignified, accessible, or lawful care

📎 Documentation (For Those Who Read):

I enclose my Written Communication Statement, which outlines the statutory basis and medical rationale for written-only engagement. It is also available online, for the benefit of institutions with a penchant for misplacing attachments:
🔗 Written Communication Statement

🕯 The Ask (Since It Must Be Spelled Out):

That the PHSO accept and investigate this complaint as a matter of urgency
That the Trust’s inertia and misconduct be examined for what they are: calculated institutional dereliction

This submission is issued under the insignia of SWANK London Ltd., a documentation authority intolerant of administrative melodrama masquerading as governance.

Yours in barbed civility,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🩺 NHS No: 6666666666
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

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

A Social Worker’s Sword: Misconduct, Discrimination, and the Art of Retaliation in Westminster

Referral to Social Work England

Regarding the Conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal – Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Contempt, and Abuse of Registered Authority

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

2 June 2025

To:
Professional Standards Directorate
Social Work England
✉ enquiries@socialworkengland.org.uk

Subject: Formal Fitness to Practise Referral – Kirsty Hornal (Westminster Children’s Services)

Concerning Misuse of Safeguarding Powers, Procedural Malfeasance, and Discriminatory Conduct toward a Disabled Litigant

Dear Professional Standards Team,

I write, with the requisite exhaustion of one too frequently targeted by institutional disdain, to raise a formal referral against Ms Kirsty Hornal, social worker employed by Westminster City Council Children’s Services, whose recent conduct has pierced the boundaries of professional decency and landed squarely in the domain of coercive misconduct.

🕯 The Incident in Brief — Though Nothing About It Was Briefly Endured

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal issued me an unsolicited and aggressive email, stating that “the local authority is applying to court for a supervision order.” The communication was:

Unanchored in legal reality, risk evidence, or safeguarding protocol
Devoid of procedural grounding, and therefore gratuitously menacing
A retaliatory dispatch, sent in the midst of my civil claim against her employer
A flagrant disregard of my disability accommodations, which prohibit surprise escalations or verbal manoeuvrings
Delivered as if law were theatre, and I, its unwillingly cast antagonist

One does not need a law degree — though I have certainly acted as though I hold several — to see this was not safeguarding. It was retribution masquerading as duty.

⚖ Enumerated Breaches of Professional Standards

The following Professional Standards, issued by your own body, were treated by Ms Hornal as optional décor:

1.6 – Failing to treat me as an individual or to respect my legal and medical status
1.7 – Communicating in a manner that was neither appropriate, open, nor honest — unless one considers veiled threats a form of transparency
1.9 – Exploiting her statutory position to intimidate, not protect
2.2 – Collapsing the necessary boundary between professional role and personal vendetta
5.4 – Causing risk, not mitigating it; undermining confidence in social work as a domain of safeguarding rather than silencing

🎭 Context – Which She Cannot Claim to Have Missed

I am a disabled mother of four, managing complex PTSD and muscle tension dysphonia — conditions formally documented and acknowledged by Westminster multiple times. My written-only communication directive has been repeatedly submitted. Yet, Ms Hornal chose to escalate through litigation theatre without process, consultation, or lawful basis. Her actions are not merely improper — they are institutionally corrosive.

Police involvement (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) has been necessitated. That, in itself, is an indictment of this profession’s failure to police its own.

🗂 Documents Available for Your Review

Exhibit A: Ms Hornal’s email (31 May 2025)
Exhibit B: Communication directives and medical documentation
Exhibit C: Metropolitan Police report, filed 2 June 2025
Exhibit D: Civil litigation materials proving conflict of interest

🧾 Remedy Sought

I request, in the interests of public trust and professional integrity, that Social Work England initiate an immediate fitness to practise review. This is not a matter of “conflict resolution.” It is a matter of removing individuals who weaponise statutory authority for bureaucratic vengeance.

I trust that Social Work England wishes to be perceived not merely as a registration body, but as a guardian of ethical standards. Please do not let this one pass beneath the rug so many others have already vanished under.

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

Final Notice to Sarah Newman – Safeguarding Abuse, Disability Discrimination, and Legal Liability | 22 May 2025

📜 Final Declaration of Procedural Hostility and Disability-Based Misconduct

A Notice of Institutional Liability and Personal Accountability

To:
Ms Sarah Newman
Executive Director, Bi-Borough Children’s Services
Westminster City Council & Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Date: 22 May 2025
Re: Immediate Cease and Desist – Retaliatory Safeguarding and Unlawful Interference
Dear Ms Newman,
This correspondence serves as a formal and final notice: any further attempt by you or your agents to initiate safeguarding procedures, encrypted contact, uninvited home attendance, or verbal communication with me or my children shall be construed, without ambiguity, as:
Sustained institutional harassment
Procedural retaliation targeting a civil litigant
Direct disability discrimination
Each of the above constitutes actionable misconduct under the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, and established common law doctrines of abuse of power and failure of public duty.
You are now personally and professionally on notice. This warning will not be repeated.

⚖️ Legal and Evidentiary Architecture (Already Active)

You are reminded of the following binding structures:
Formal CIN refusal filed on lawful and medical grounds
N1 Civil Claim, N16A Injunction, and N461 Judicial Review already submitted
Multiple police reports filed (Refs: BCA-10622, BCA-25130, ROC-10237)
Formal complaints lodged with the LGSCO, ICO, NHS Trust, and GMC
A written-only communication policy established and enforceable under the Equality Act 2010
Any deviation from these frameworks constitutes a deliberate act of defiance against court-linked and disability-adjusted boundaries.

🛑 Cease and Desist Instructions – Non-Negotiable

You are hereby instructed to:
Cease all contact not explicitly written and not facilitated through legal representation
Cease all safeguarding initiatives unless lawfully mandated by a court of record
Refrain from referring my children to any third-party service without express court-authorised cause
Acknowledge institutional and individual liability for any further contact or reprisal
This shall be treated as a formal declaration of non-consent to all further interaction outside judicial or written context.

⚠ Consequences of Breach – Without Further Notice

In the event of noncompliance, I will:
File a personal civil claim for negligence, victimisation, and discrimination against you individually
Submit the breach to the High Court, appending all related misconduct to my active judicial filings
Publicly release the full chronology as part of a protected whistleblower archive under public interest immunity
Failure to respond will be construed as wilful negligence and escalated as such.

🖋 Filed By:

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

Refusal of CIN Visit – Medical Grounds, Legal Filings, and Police Reports | 22 May 2025

🛑 Formal Refusal of CIN Visit Request

A Declaration of Legal Non-Consent and Medical Prohibition

Issued: 22 May 2025
To: Mr Sam Brown & Ms Kirsty Hornal
Westminster Children’s Services
Subject: Disability Adjustment, Judicial Protections & Active Police Proceedings

✒️ Opening Rebuke

Dear Mr Brown and Ms Hornal,
Consider this your formal and final notice: I do not and cannot consent to any in-person visits, uninvited verbal engagements, or contact of any kind pertaining to your CIN involvement request.
Such approaches are:
Medically contraindicated
Legally impermissible
Procedurally coercive and discriminatory
This communication constitutes a legal refusal underpinned by binding medical evidence and statutory protection. You are now on record.

🩺 Medical Standing – Non-Negotiable Adjustments

I am protected by formally diagnosed conditions, including:
Eosinophilic Asthma – aggravated by stress and poor air quality
Muscle Tension Dysphonia – rendering verbal communication functionally impossible
Complex PTSD – specifically trauma-linked to institutional intrusion, including social services
These diagnoses are fully documented in the attached psychiatric assessment by Dr Irfan Rafiq (26 November 2024), which explicitly prescribes written-only communication as a reasonable and legally binding adjustment under UK disability law.
To ignore this is not a service error. It is discrimination with medical consequences.

⚖️ Judicial and Criminal Proceedings – Active and Escalating

You are not engaging with a "service user." You are attempting contact with a person who has initiated multiple police reports and civil actions against your department, including but not limited to:

📁 Police Reports on File:

BCA-10622-25-0101-IR – Disability-based coercion (Ms Hornal)
BCA-25130-25-0101-IR – Retaliatory safeguarding after protected disclosure
BCA-25249-25-0101-IR – Sustained coercion, medical neglect, fabricated risk
ROC-10237-25-0101-IR – Procedural harassment by Mr Brown

📜 Civil Filings in Motion:

N1 Claim – Disability discrimination & safeguarding abuse
N16A Injunction – Prohibiting procedural interference
N461 Judicial Review – Legality of safeguarding escalation under challenge
Your insistence on CIN contact in this context is astonishingly reckless and legally indefensible.

🧾 Legal Position – Boundaries Now Formalised

Any further attempt to initiate:
CIN visits
Verbal or encrypted contact
Telephone calls or unscheduled engagement
...shall be treated as:
Harassment
Breach of medical directive
Violation of statutory rights under the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, and common law duties of care and proportionality
You are, by law, now barred from making contact outside permitted channels.

📫 Permitted Modes of Contact – Nothing More, Nothing Less

You may address me only via:
✉ Unencrypted email
📮 Postal letter (Royal Mail only – no couriers, no doorstep appearances)
All other contact methods — verbal, encrypted, or physical — are deemed unlawful and will be documented accordingly.

🖋 Filed By:

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