“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 LGO complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGO complaint. Show all posts

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: When Kindness Masked Neglect ⟡


⟡ “Sympathy Without Action Is Neglect With a Smile.” ⟡
Formal complaint to the Ombudsman documenting passive abuse by Kirsty Hornal through inaction, delay, and selective compassion

Filed: 5 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/LGO-HORNAL-INACTION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-05_SWANK_LGOComplaint_KirstyHornal_PassiveNeglect.pdf
Ombudsman complaint citing systemic inaction and disability harm enabled by Kirsty Hornal’s failure to intervene despite awareness

I. What Happened

On 5 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, targeting the passive neglect of Kirsty Hornal, a social worker within Westminster Children’s Services.

Though Hornal communicated with superficial empathy, she failed to implement any substantive protection or enforce legally mandated disability accommodations. She acknowledged harm, promised follow-ups, referenced NHS colleagues — and did nothing.

This inaction took place while Polly and her children were recovering from sewer gas poisoning, battling immunocompromising conditions, and attempting to homeschool under harassment.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Refusal to enforce adjustments despite confirmed diagnosis and stated risk

  • Human impact: Panic attacks, respiratory deterioration, educational disruption, retraumatisation

  • Power dynamics: Institutional neglect hidden behind polite tone and performative concern

  • Institutional failure: Staff permitted to acknowledge harm without duty to stop it

  • Unacceptable conduct: Tolerating medical harm under the illusion of professionalism

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because kind emails mean nothing if the harm continues.
Because silence in policy clothing is still silence.
Because Kirsty Hornal did not need to escalate to be abusive — she only had to do nothing while harm accrued.
Because this is what systemic discrimination often looks like: not malice, but inertia.
Not denial, but neglect.
Not shouting — just letting it happen.

This was the formal act of naming what the institution packaged as “support”: chronic inaction, dressed as care.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to make or enforce reasonable adjustments

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to protect welfare through inaction

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – indirect violation of family life through unremedied harm

  • Ombudsman Standards, Duty of Service – failure to act on repeated, substantiated risk notifications

  • Social Work England Standards, 3.1, 5.1 – neglect of health needs, avoidable harm through omission

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept inaction as neutrality.
We do not accept performative kindness as compliance.
We do not accept that professionals may admit to harm — and still allow it.

This wasn’t miscommunication.
This was professional indifference.

This wasn’t benign neglect.
It was structured, delayed, and systemically enabled — and now, permanently documented.

⟡ 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:

You Gave the Ombudsman the Evidence. The Council Gave You More Harassment.


⟡ “Submitted to the Ombudsman. Ignored by the Offenders.” ⟡

An evidence bundle provided to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), documenting RBKC’s role in retaliatory safeguarding abuse and procedural misconduct.

Filed: 10 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/LGO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-10_SWANK_LGO_Submission_RBKC_SupportingEvidenceBundle.pdf
This archive captures the exact materials sent to the LGO in support of a formal complaint against RBKC, highlighting cross-institutional collusion, email evidence, and safeguarding escalation patterns.

I. What Happened

In early May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an official complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning:

  • Misuse of PLO protocols

  • Procedural ambush tactics

  • Failure to recognise disability accommodations

  • Coordinated efforts between RBKC and Westminster to bypass medical and legal safeguards

This file served as the accompanying supporting document package, containing referenced communications, disability declarations, and patterns of retaliatory action.

II. What the Record Establishes

  • That the LGO was provided with full visibility of misconduct

  • That RBKC’s safeguarding activity was already under complaint

  • That Polly Chromatic submitted a legally and medically supported claim

  • That silence or inaction following this submission amounts to procedural complicity

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because oversight bodies are only neutral until they ignore the oversight.
Because submission to the LGO isn’t just a request —
it’s a trigger point, and when ignored, becomes institutional evidence itself.
Because RBKC was already on notice.

And now the public is too.

IV. Violations

  • Failure to uphold due process in safeguarding application

  • Ignoring formal disability disclosure and legal protections

  • Breach of public body accountability under LGO review

  • Unlawful child welfare escalation after formal complaints

  • Ignoring patterns of documented retaliation

V. SWANK’s Position

When you give them the documents,
and they give you more retaliation,
you stop calling it oversight.

You start calling it state-aligned harm.

This was a submission to prevent that.
They chose to proceed anyway.

⟡ 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:

When Retaliation Becomes the Policy Itself


⟡ SWANK Regulatory Complaint ⟡

“When the Safeguarding Process Requires Its Own Complaint Procedure”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/LGO/WCC/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_OmbudsmanComplaint_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityBreach.pdf

I. The Escalation Westminster Engineered

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. formally referred Westminster City Council — and specifically Ms Kirsty Hornal — to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The cause?

An email.
A threat.
A choreography of coercion dressed up as child protection.

Ms Hornal, having already ignored a documented disability adjustment requiring written-only contact, elected to inform the claimant (a disabled mother in active litigation) that Westminster was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

There was:

  • No risk

  • No assessment

  • No meeting

  • No procedural basis

There was only a safeguarding pretext, delivered as an act of bureaucratic retaliation.

II. The Offences Committed

This complaint identifies four core domains of institutional failure:

  1. Disability Discrimination
    Breach of Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, and 27 — failure to uphold adjustments, repeated knowingly.

  2. Human Rights Violation
    Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 — family life interfered with via administrative threat.

  3. Retaliatory Conduct During Litigation
    Issued while a live civil claim (N1) was underway — a textbook misuse of institutional power.

  4. Collapse of Complaint Pathways
    Westminster’s internal handling was either performative or prejudiced — necessitating third-party regulatory involvement.

III. The Evidence (And Its Tone)

  • Exhibit A – The offending email

  • Exhibit B – The documented disability communication directive

  • Exhibit C – The police report acknowledging coercion

  • Exhibit D – Evidence of the ongoing civil proceedings against Westminster

This wasn’t a safeguarding plan.
It was an administrative flex — designed to intimidate a disabled parent mid-litigation.

And now it’s documented in triplicate, distributed to Parliament, the police, regulators, and the public archive.

IV. SWANK’s Position

Let us be clear:
We are not appealing to conscience. We are activating governance.

When the safeguarding process is used to frighten, not protect, it becomes necessary to file complaints about safeguarding itself.

And when that happens —
You are no longer safeguarding children. You are safeguarding power.

This Ombudsman complaint now joins the growing dossier of recorded abuses by Westminster staff and officials. It is no longer a local matter. It is a matter of public service accountability.

⟡ 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: