⟡ CRIMINAL REFERRAL – WESTMINSTER CHILDREN’S SERVICES ⟡
Filed: 21 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-LE-CRIMINAL-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-21_Core_PC-147_WestminsterChildrenServices_CriminalReferral.pdf
Summary: A criminal referral submitted to the Metropolitan Police Service, Directorate of Professional Standards, detailing coordinated retaliation, harassment, and safeguarding misuse by Westminster City Council officials. Filed by SWANK London Ltd. in its capacity as a formal evidentiary archive and independent audit entity.
I. The Referral
This criminal referral was submitted by Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., U.S. citizen, and mother of four disabled U.S. citizen children.
It names three Westminster officials:
Kirsty Hornal – Social Worker
Sam Brown – Deputy Team Manager
Sarah Newman – Executive Director of Bi-Borough Children’s Services
The referral requests a criminal investigation into their conduct amounting to:
• Retaliation following legal action and public documentation.
• Harassment via coercive visits, unsolicited package drops, and surveillance-style contact.
• Disability discrimination in contravention of statutory accommodation obligations.
• Misuse of safeguarding powers to suppress evidence and intimidate the complainant.
• Malfeasance in public office.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That Westminster officers engaged in repeated, targeted acts of retaliation linked directly to the complainant’s lawful filings.
• That these acts meet statutory and common law thresholds for harassment, discrimination, and misconduct in public office.
• That SWANK London Ltd. functions as a legal-aesthetic record capable of evidencing state retaliation in real time.
• That all incidents are documented, timestamped, and publicly available via the SWANK Evidentiary Archive.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To create a public record of criminal allegations submitted to the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards.
• To hold named officials individually accountable within the jurisdictional hierarchy of misconduct.
• To assert that professional misconduct ceases to be “internal” once its pattern is documented across legal, medical, and public domains.
• Because silence breeds impunity, and documentation converts it into evidence.
IV. Legal Framework
Statutes Invoked
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – repeated contact and intimidation.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15, 19, 20 – failure to provide disability accommodations.
• Common Law Offence – Malfeasance in Public Office.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 8, 14 – degrading treatment, interference with family life, discriminatory conduct.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – unlawful data access and contact under false pretense.
Regulatory Authorities Copied
• Social Work England
• Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman
• Information Commissioner’s Office
V. Factual Chronology
• 2023–2025: escalation of misconduct following lawful petitions and filings.
• Threatening emails sent within hours of legal document service.
• Repeated violations of written-only communication requirements.
• Unscheduled doorstep visits and coercive “supervision packages.”
• Coordinated failures of senior oversight despite prior complaints.
• Surveillance patterns aligning with public SWANK uploads.
The pattern forms a documented chain of retaliation — a choreography of misconduct performed with bureaucratic precision.
VI. SWANK’s Position
“It is not safeguarding when the harm is state-authored.”
SWANK London Ltd. affirms that this referral represents not merely an accusation, but the juridical birth of accountability.
Where Westminster attempted to silence, SWANK has recorded.
Where the public sector relied on opacity, SWANK substituted publication.
The system is now under its own lens.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because misconduct deserves exposure.
And retaliation deserves prosecution.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer
This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd (United Kingdom)
and SWANK London LLC (United States of America).
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
Every division operates under dual sovereignty: UK evidentiary law and U.S. constitutional speech protection.
This document does not contain confidential family court material.
It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings —
including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints.
All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation.
This is not a breach of privacy.
It is the preservation of truth.
Protected under Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
alongside all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure.
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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive,
and writing is how I survive this pain.
Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed
in accordance with SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards,
registered under SWANK London Ltd (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA).
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA)
All formatting, typographic, and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence.
Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.