“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Kirsty Hornal Complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kirsty Hornal Complaint. Show all posts

You Fabricated a Risk. I Filed a Complaint. You Called That Neglect. But Now the Record Belongs to Me.


⟡ “She Lied About My Parenting. I Filed a Complaint. She Called That Neglect.” ⟡
A formal rebuttal and complaint naming Kirsty Hornal for manufacturing safeguarding risk, retaliating against disability accommodation, and turning complaint into cause.

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-17
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-22_SWANK_Complaint_Westminster_KirstyHornal_PLOFabrication_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Formal submission to Westminster Children’s Services and regulatory authorities detailing disability discrimination, statutory retaliation, and factual fabrication by social worker Kirsty Hornal. Includes legal citations, psychiatric evidence, and intent to escalate to oversight bodies and court.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Westminster issued a PLO warning letter. It contained false allegations, procedural distortions, and accusations that had no evidentiary basis. This formal complaint was issued in direct response, citing misconduct, discrimination, and structural harm.

In this filing, Polly Chromatic:

  • Cites the Equality Act 2010 and psychiatric documentation (Dr. Rafiq, Nov 2024)

  • Refutes every claim: neglect, disengagement, educational failure, drug use

  • Confirms prior contact, medical communication boundaries, and lawful parenting history

  • Notes that the CIN plan was closed without request, immediately after a police report

  • Names the resulting escalation — PLO — as retaliatory in both form and intent

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That safeguarding procedures were activated not to protect — but to retaliate

  • That Kirsty Hornal misused professional authority to punish lawful complaint

  • That disability accommodation was repeatedly refused, misrepresented, or erased

  • That internal records appear inaccurate, deliberately biased, or both

  • That Westminster cannot plead ignorance — they were given medical reports, legal citations, and clinical proof

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the moment safeguarding becomes conditional on silence, it ceases to be lawful. And the moment an institution uses your diagnosis against you — it isn’t protection. It’s persecution.

SWANK archived this filing to:

  • Publicly expose the structural logic behind the PLO escalation

  • Name the institutional actors responsible for retaliatory statutory abuse

  • Formally declare the breakdown of social work neutrality in this case

This is not “parental resistance.” It’s a forensic refusal to accept rewritten facts.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Refusal to adjust for disability
    • Section 27: Retaliation following police report
    • Section 149: Breach of public sector duty to eliminate discrimination

  • Children Act 1989 – Fabricated neglect claims caused emotional harm and statutory abuse

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Family life
    • Article 6: Right to a fair hearing
    • Article 14: Protection from discrimination

  • Social Work England Standards –
    • 3.1: Be honest and accurate
    • 5.1: Maintain factual records
    • 6.4: Do not allow personal views to influence professional decisions

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t child protection — it’s case-building against the truth. When a social worker reads your psychiatric report and still accuses you of “non-engagement,” she isn’t confused. She’s working from a script.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this complaint as a procedural bombshell. One that will detonate in court, in regulation, and in public record.

⟡ 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: