“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
Showing posts with label PLO misuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PLO misuse. Show all posts

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.

⟡ 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 You Weaponise Procedure, the Procedure Becomes the Evidence.


⟡ A Complaint So Clear, Even the Ombudsman Can Understand It ⟡
“You ignored the law. Then you ignored the complaint. But you won’t ignore the record.”

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC-WCC/LGSCO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_LGSCOComplaint_RBKC-WCC_PLODisabilityBreach.pdf
Formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman detailing retaliatory safeguarding action, disability discrimination, and PLO escalation misuse.

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, a PLO letter was issued against a disabled mother of four, despite no findings of harm, neglect, or statutory breach after a year-long investigation.
That letter was sent just two months after she reported a social worker to police.

This complaint, filed on 23 April 2025, details a pattern of:

  • Retaliation following legal disclosures

  • Procedural misuse of safeguarding frameworks

  • Disability discrimination under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010

  • Obstruction of closure and refusal to release lawful records

  • Repeated refusal to implement written-only communication despite clinical documentation

Five statutory requests.
Zero acknowledgements.
And still — no final report.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Misuse of safeguarding and PLO procedures as tools of institutional reprisal

  • Unlawful escalation against a disabled parent without evidentiary basis

  • Failure to implement mandated disability accommodations

  • Breach of procedural justice, transparency, and closure under both the Children Act and GDPR

  • Entrenched cultural resistance to SEND/EHE families asserting their legal rights

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliatory safeguarding is not a safeguarding concern — it’s a governance concern.
Because forcing a disabled parent to “speak anyway” is not a support plan — it’s statutory misconduct.
Because after exhausting every internal complaint mechanism, the only thing left to escalate is the record itself.

This complaint is not a request for help.
It is a procedural audit in motion.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 breach (failure to implement reasonable adjustments)

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004 – Procedural failure to justify safeguarding escalation

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with private/family life (Article 8), discrimination (Article 14)

  • Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR – Withholding legally requested assessment and closure documentation

  • LGSCO Principles of Good Administration – Violated through delay, failure to provide reasons, and abuse of discretion

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not child protection.
It was procedural retaliation.

This was not oversight.
It was reputational damage control disguised as concern.

No findings. No closure. No accountability.
So the complaint became the evidence.
And the record — permanent.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions