Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): Kirsty Hornal misconduct

Showing posts with label Kirsty Hornal misconduct. Show all posts

No Father. No Culture. No Credibility.

⟡ You Want to Assess a Family You Don’t Even Understand. ⟡
When a white social work team refuses to acknowledge the racial and cultural identity of the children they claim to “protect.”

Filed: 19 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-17
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-19_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_RacialBiasCulturalCompetenceComplaint.pdf
Formal complaint demanding racial competence, cultural representation, and procedural fairness in safeguarding practice — including Westminster’s erasure of the father and mishandling of identity-led support needs.

I. What Happened

Westminster launched statutory proceedings against a multiracial American family without recognising the significance of race, fatherhood, cultural upbringing, or institutional bias.
Not a single representative on the team reflected the children’s heritage.
Not a single step taken to engage the father — until it suited escalation.
This filing exposes what’s missing from their safeguarding framework: cultural literacy, racial accountability, and lawful neutrality.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the children’s racial and cultural identities were erased from Westminster’s procedural strategy
That safeguarding actions ignored paternal engagement, replacing inclusion with exclusion
That representation was not only absent — it was professionally unacknowledged
That legal obligation under race equality policy was breached without correction or review

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because race-blind practice is not neutral — it’s negligent.
Because refusing to engage the father until the state needs a counter-signature is not oversight — it’s manipulation.
And because safeguarding without cultural competence is not protection. It’s projection.

IV. Violations Identified

Racial Discrimination in Case Handling
Failure to Engage Paternal Role and Rights
Cultural Erasure in Assessment
Breach of Equality and Diversity Standards
Institutional Bias Structuring Safeguarding Trajectory

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster cannot continue to act as though race, nationality, or cultural history are irrelevant to child welfare.
You do not get to erase a father, miscast a mother, and then claim neutrality.
This is not just a complaint — it’s an evidentiary checkpoint.
The family's identity is not up for institutional editing.

⟡ 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.

When Ethics Are Breached, We File — Not Apologise.

⟡ Professional Misconduct is Not a Personality Quirk ⟡
When you ignore the law, disregard medical evidence, and call it safeguarding, we call it what it is: a complaint.

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_EthicalConductComplaint.pdf
A formal complaint identifying serious ethical breaches by Kirsty Hornal in her handling of pre-proceedings engagement with a disabled U.S. citizen parent.

I. What Happened

Instead of acknowledging medical documentation, Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal escalated.
Instead of respecting disability accommodations, she initiated a PLO.
Instead of ensuring lawful participation, she manipulated procedural language to penalise silence.
This complaint outlines the institutional steps taken not to protect children, but to punish a mother for being disabled — and vocal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal acted in defiance of established ethical and legal standards
That disability accommodations were repeatedly dismissed or ignored
That PLO proceedings were triggered in bad faith, without evidentiary basis
That her behaviour constitutes an abuse of public office under the guise of child protection

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because "just following procedure" is not a defence when the procedure is selectively enforced.
Because ethical codes are not optional depending on the service user's tone.
Because when a mother provides documentation and gets retaliation, something is rotten — not just in the case, but in the entire department.

IV. Violations Identified

Professional Misconduct
Disability Discrimination
Abuse of Safeguarding Procedures
Failure to Uphold Equality Duty
Misrepresentation of Statutory Criteria

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not about personality conflict. It is about structural retaliation sanctioned by silence.
When ethical codes are broken this flagrantly, no outcome reached under their breach can be lawful.
Kirsty Hornal cannot claim ignorance. She can only claim impunity.
This filing ensures she no longer has that either.

The Social Worker Cried, Then Called a Lawyer — And You’re Still Calling It Child Protection?

⟡ She Cried. She Panicked. She Threatened a Disabled Parent. And She Still Has a Case. ⟡
A safeguarding officer who can’t regulate her emotions should not be supervising anyone else’s.

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-11
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_EmotionalUnfitnessReferral.pdf
A formal referral raising concerns about Kirsty Hornal’s psychological unsuitability for child welfare duties, based on erratic conduct during statutory procedures.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal entered the PLO process with visible emotional instability:
Crying in meetings. Making threats. Sending coercive emails to a disabled mother — while disregarding the mother’s medical exemption from verbal communication.
This document formally outlines the concern: that Ms. Hornal’s personal conduct is so emotionally volatile it compromises her professional capacity.
It is not just about policy now. It is about psychological fitness for authority.

II. What the Referral Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal displayed unregulated emotional behaviour during sensitive safeguarding matters
That she used personal distress as a rationale for escalating intervention
That her actions jeopardised the safety and legal rights of a medically exempt parent
That her continued involvement creates reputational risk for Westminster and harm for service users

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because children’s welfare should not depend on whether the caseworker is having a good day.
Because a social worker crying mid-procedure is not a symbol of care — it’s a sign of collapse.
Because what starts as emotional instability becomes institutional liability.
And because if the public is watching, they deserve to know who’s running the case.

IV. Violations Identified

Emotional Misconduct in a Safeguarding Role
Retaliatory Contact with Medically Exempt Parent
Breach of Objectivity and Procedural Impartiality
Abuse of Power Under Psychological Duress
Safeguarding Misuse Escalated by Personal Emotion

V. SWANK’s Position

No child should be placed at the mercy of a professional who cannot manage her own distress.
No parent should be coerced by someone using mental instability as a policy instrument.
And no institution should be allowed to pretend this is normal.
This is not just about Kirsty.
It is about every single person who let her keep the case.

Disproven, Racially Charged, and Still Cited — That’s Not Protection. That’s Retaliation.

⟡ The “Concern” Was False. The Motive Was Racial. The Record Is Now Public. ⟡
When safeguarding becomes a smokescreen for bias, we reply with documentation — and a formal rebuttal.

Filed: 17 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-17_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_RaciallyMotivatedFalseAllegationRebuttal.pdf
A direct response to Westminster’s citation of a medically disproven, racially motivated allegation in their PLO reasoning — despite full exoneration.

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services, under the lead of Kirsty Hornal, cited a “concern” that had already been medically dismissed and procedurally closed.
They not only included it in their PLO file — they used it to justify statutory escalation.
The origin of the allegation was racially charged. The outcome was clinically disproven. The citation was deliberate.
This document outlines the timeline, the rebuttal, and the misconduct.

II. What the Rebuttal Establishes

That the original allegation was rooted in discriminatory profiling
That medical professionals have explicitly cleared the concern as untrue
That Westminster knowingly relied on debunked claims to pursue legal action
That the inclusion of this disproven material constitutes racial and procedural misconduct

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because if the UK state can use disproven claims to justify intrusion, then safeguarding is no longer about safety — it’s about strategy.
Because the selective use of racially charged allegations, long after dismissal, is not negligence — it is intentional.
And because the family targeted is American, disabled, and documented.
We are not silent. We are timestamped.

IV. Violations Identified

Racial Discrimination
Procedural Bad Faith
Use of Disproven Allegations in Legal Justification
Negligence in Factual Accuracy During Pre-Proceedings
Breach of Equality and Human Rights Law

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t just a rebuttal. It’s a warning.
If Westminster continues to cite disproven allegations to justify escalation, they are not just failing the law — they are redefining it.
The state cannot cling to lies just because it dislikes the truth.
And when they try, we publish.

They Knew She Couldn't Speak — And That’s When They Scheduled the Meeting.

⟡ “The Mother Has Medical Conditions.” — “Let’s Proceed Anyway.” ⟡
When the safeguarding meeting is more important than the patient’s lungs.

Filed: 17 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-08
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-17_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_MedicalDismissalRebuttal.pdf
Formal response to Westminster’s refusal to acknowledge critical medical evidence before initiating PLO procedures against a disabled U.S. citizen parent.

I. What Happened

Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services received written notification that the mother was medically exempt from verbal interaction.
She had hospital records. She had documentation from specialists. She had legal rights.
They convened the PLO anyway.
The official record shows no accommodations made, no meeting rescheduled, and no concern expressed.
Because in Westminster, disability appears to be something to document — not respect.

II. What the Document Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal knowingly initiated a PLO procedure in full knowledge of the mother’s medical inability to speak
That no legal adjustments were made to ensure fair access or participation
That the safeguarding process was triggered without verifying whether the parent could physically respond
That disability rights were not merely overlooked — they were procedurally bulldozed

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the safeguarding process is not an excuse to ignore the Equality Act.
Because medical records are not optional reading.
Because forcing a disabled parent into silence is not protection — it’s persecution.
And because this isn’t child protection. This is narrative control.

IV. Violations Identified

Disability Discrimination under UK Equality Law
Procedural Misuse of Safeguarding Pathways
Retaliatory Neglect of Medical Documentation
Violation of Parental and Communication Rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This is no longer a debate about whether the PLO was justified.
It is now a question of whether Westminster knowingly proceeded without legal grounds, without access adjustments, and without care.
The mother didn’t refuse to engage.
She physically couldn’t.
And they punished her anyway.

The Appointment That Didn’t Happen — But Still Hurt: How Absence Became Another Form of Retaliation

⟡ “I’m Tired of Being Bothered While I’m Sick” ⟡
A Procedural Failure, A Disability Violation, A Pattern in a Sentence

Filed: 10 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-10_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_NoShow_DisabilityDisregard.pdf
Brief but critical email noting a missed visit by Kirsty Hornal, documenting failure to respect health status and contact boundaries during a documented period of medical vulnerability.

I. What Happened

On 9 January 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an email to solicitor Laura Savage and social worker Kirsty Hornal stating, plainly: “Social worker didn’t show up today. I’m tired of being bothered while I’m sick.”

No meeting occurred. No explanation was offered.
Yet the inconvenience of being stood up was compounded by the invasiveness of unwanted contact — during an ongoing medical crisis, and after multiple adjustment notices had already been sent.

It was a line. It was crossed. Then it was documented.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

A procedural absence by the state: scheduled meeting missed, no accountability
A verbal disability violation: contact imposed despite prior refusals
Health disregard: illness acknowledged, but not accommodated
Failure to repair or apologise: silence as institutional habit
Escalation context: This occurred during ongoing safeguarding pressure

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because not showing up is not neutrality. It is abandonment — and when it happens repeatedly, it becomes part of the abuse.

This message is short because Polly Chromatic was sick. And that is the point.

SWANK logged it not for its length, but for its implication: that procedural authority can harass even when it does nothing — especially when it was already told to stop.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an isolated failure.
It was a thread in a woven pattern of disrespect.

We do not accept that missed appointments mean missed accountability.
We do not accept that illness justifies silence from professionals who cause it.
We will document every no-show that was preceded by coercion — and followed by nothing.

⟡ 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.

Disruption as Default: When Ten Years of Interference Is Branded as Care

⟡ “It’s Been Ten Years of Disruption — And We’re Still Not Left Alone” ⟡
A Verbal Disability Reminder, A Homeschooling Disruption Report, and Ten Years of Silence Rebranded as Involvement

Filed: 30 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-30_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_HomeEducation_DisruptionComplaint.pdf
Email complaint noting long-term disruption to home education and repeated social worker absences. Reaffirms verbal disability and written-only contact requirement.

I. What Happened

On 30 January 2025, Polly Chromatic sent an email addressed to:

Social worker Kirsty Hornal
GP Dr. Philip Reid
Legal advocate Laura Savage
RBKC’s Gideon Mpalanyi

The message stated, clearly: “It’s been very disruptive to homeschooling to have social workers disrupting our day for ten years for no reason and all the no shows are irritating to us all.”

It also reiterated an essential legal boundary: “I cannot speak verbally. Please email only. I do not own a phone.”

No accommodation was made. No change occurred.
Instead, the interruptions continued — and the “no-shows” accumulated alongside procedural harassment.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

A written disability adjustment reiteration
A formal statement on the impact of government interference on educational provision
Long-term disruption treated as normative rather than exceptional
Verbal disability ignored despite direct notice
Institutional indifference to routine procedural inconvenience framed as “support”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because every social worker absence is filed as “non-engagement,” while every parental withdrawal is framed as neglect.

This email is the counter-narrative: a legally documented notice that the system was the disruption. And that the silence from institutions — when confronted with these facts — was not incidental. It was chosen.

SWANK logs this because educational stability is not a luxury, and neither is the legal right to written communication.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This was not an update. It was a boundary, reasserted.
And once again, ignored.

We do not accept that ten years of disruption can be called “involvement.”
We do not accept that verbal disability must be re-declared every month to remain valid.
We will document every instance where absence was reframed as support — and every contact made in defiance of medical fact.

⟡ 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.

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Referral Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Rebuttal Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

Documented Obsessions