⟡ “She Said She Was ‘En Route.’ I Said I Was Disabled. Only One of Us Was Breaking the Law.” ⟡
A same-day email from Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal announcing her impending arrival — uninvited, unconsented, and medically inappropriate. Proof that institutional harassment doesn’t always knock first — sometimes it emails.
Filed: 23 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-18
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-23_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_ForcedVisitAnnouncement_DisabilityViolation.pdf
Same-day contact notice from WCC social worker Kirsty Hornal announcing a home visit without prior agreement. Sent to a parent with a known verbal disability, this email documents a procedural breach and a calculated disregard of lawful communication adjustments.
I. What Happened
On 23 January 2025, Kirsty Hornal — already named in multiple complaints for disability discrimination — sent a message to Polly Chromatic at 3:41pm that read:
“I am en route and will be with you at 4.10pm.”
That’s it.
No consent. No coordination. No accommodation.
Just forced proximity disguised as service.
This was not protection. It was surveillance by appointment — one the parent never made.
II. What the Email Establishes
That no notice was given for a potentially triggering visit
That written-only contact boundaries were again ignored
That WCC operated on a coercive logic: presence over permission
That verbal contact was treated as procedural default — not medical risk
That this was not an isolated incident, but part of a harassment pattern
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because “on my way” is not policy. Because the right to refuse contact is not a luxury — it’s a legal adjustment. And because this email is the digital footprint of institutional trespass.
SWANK archived it to:
Provide timestamped proof of nonconsensual contact attempts
Undermine any future claims of “invited engagement”
Record another clear breach of disability accommodation and safeguarding ethics
This wasn’t just poor planning. This was the system reminding you: we go where we like.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Refusal to make written-only adjustments
• Section 27: Retaliatory pressure through in-person tactics
• Section 149: Breach of public sector equality dutyChildren Act 1989 – Emotional distress from home intrusion under false safeguarding
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Right to home and family privacy
• Article 14: Discrimination via service deliverySocial Work England Standards –
• Failure to uphold boundaries
• Disregard for medical evidence
• Unethical enforcement of face-to-face coercion
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to rewrite harm into help just because you arrived in daylight. This visit wasn’t scheduled. It was enforced. This parent didn’t disengage — she lawfully withdrew consent, and was pursued anyway.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this email as a procedural micro-aggression with legal consequence — a “courtesy heads-up” that functioned as coercive surveillance.
⟡ 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.