⟡ “We See No Harm. But Would You Like a Phone Call?” ⟡
A tone-deaf response to a decade of abuse — with a scheduling link.
Filed: 9 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/COMPLAINT-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-09_SWANK_Email_NWSocialWorkTeam_Stage1ComplaintDismissal_ResponseFile.pdf
This is the Stage 1 complaint response from Westminster's North West Social Work Team, dismissing every disability disclosure, pattern of retaliation, and safeguarding misuse with a tone that could only be described as “politely delusional.” It’s what happens when a government body pretends empathy is an eraser.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint — supported by police reports, medical records, and ten years of demonstrable abuse.
Westminster replied:
That Kirsty Hornal felt the visit was "productive"
That “escalation” only happens when families don’t cooperate
That mask-wearing was proof of accommodation
That they see no misconduct — but offered a phone call anyway
When in doubt: smile, deny, and suggest Zoom.
II. What the Response Establishes
That Westminster refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Kirsty Hornal or the safeguarding team
That the harm reported was reframed as misunderstanding
That retaliation was repackaged as “escalation” due to lack of cooperation
That the decade-long trauma was ignored with a façade of politeness
That institutional abuse is still being handled like a customer service issue
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because “we see no harm” is not an investigation.
Because when the system erases evidence with tone, the only thing left is a public record.
Because when they offered to “discuss it by phone,” they forgot Polly Chromatic is medically exempt from speech — and already documented why.
This isn’t engagement. It’s evasion.
IV. Violations Identified
Misrepresentation of documented disability complaints as “concerns”
Failure to address retaliation patterns across agencies
Disregard of police involvement and medical risk reports
Refusal to implement or review accessibility and procedural safeguards
Procedural gaslighting disguised as courtesy
V. SWANK’s Position
Polly filed a complaint.
They filed a reply — with empty paragraphs and no admission.
She didn’t ask for an apology.
She asked for accountability.
And now, she has a timestamp.
And they have a PDF.
⟡ 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.