⟡ “I Told You I Was Broken. You Scheduled a Visit.” ⟡
A scheduling exchange that becomes a procedural indictment. Westminster asked for a date. The parent gave them a diagnosis. The reply? A confirmation — not of concern, but of arrival.
Filed: 20 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-19
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-20_SWANK_Email_Westminster_KirstyHornal_VisitScheduled_DisabilityCollapseStatement.pdf
Correspondence with Kirsty Hornal in which the parent confirms illness, PTSD, and a decade of systemic harm — then schedules a meeting anyway, out of politeness. The council confirms, and nothing changes.
I. What Happened
On 20 January 2025, after years of surveillance, safeguarding misuse, and medically documented trauma, Polly Chromatic responded to social worker Kirsty Hornal with what should have been a final disclosure.
• Eosinophilic asthma
• Muscle dysphonia
• PTSD from social services
• 10 years of compounded harm
• And a full, honest breakdown of psychological collapse
But politeness prevailed. A meeting time was offered anyway.
Westminster’s response?
“Thank you for confirming we can meet at 4pm.”
It wasn’t just tone-deaf. It was proof that compliance doesn’t protect — even when you’re dying by inches.
II. What the Email Establishes
That the parent disclosed diagnosed, disabling medical conditions
That Westminster received this disclosure — and responded with a time slot
That written-only contact wasn’t just preferred — it was critical and ignored
That the institution never asked if a meeting was safe — only when
That disability, trauma, and collapse were procedurally irrelevant
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because you can’t claim someone “refused to engage” when their email begins with medical collapse and ends with polite submission. This isn’t just documentation — it’s a weaponised RSVP.
SWANK archived this because:
It’s the moment procedural obedience met institutional apathy
It proves that engagement doesn’t protect against harm — it invites it
It’s a timestamped record of the conversion of disclosure into vulnerability
This is not “safeguarding.” This is administrative sadism with a polite signature line.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Communication adjustment ignored
• Section 27: Retaliation through pressure after disclosure
• Section 149: Duty to eliminate disability harm failedChildren Act 1989 – Ongoing family harm, procedural misuse
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family life
• Article 3: Inhuman or degrading treatmentSocial Work England Standards –
• Failure to act with empathy
• Procedural overreach
• Disregard for medical boundaries
V. SWANK’s Position
When someone says, “I can’t breathe, I can’t speak, I can’t go on,” and you reply with “See you at 4pm,” you are no longer safeguarding. You are documenting your own irrelevance.
SWANK London Ltd. recognises this file as the moment politeness became collapse, and Westminster proved it wasn’t listening — it was clocking in.
⟡ 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.