Showing posts with label Procedural Retaliation. Show all posts

⟡ Chromatic v Hearing: The Care Order Filed in Absence, Set Aside in Public ⟡

⟡ “They Took the Children at 1:37 PM. No Notice. No Lawyer. No Voice. This Is the Application That Will Undo It.” ⟡
Filed under contempt. Documented under oath. Read under pressure.

Filed: 23 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMCOURT/0622-SETASIDE-CAREORDER
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-22_SWANK_Application_CareOrder_SetAside_ProceduralBreach.pdf
Formal application to overturn the 23 June 2025 care order due to procedural exclusion, disability breach, and judicial misconduct.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025 at 1:37 PM, four U.S. citizen children were forcibly removed from the home of Polly Chromatic, a disabled American mother engaged in active litigation against multiple UK authorities. No court order was presented. No destination was disclosed.

The applicant received no notice of any hearing.
She was not represented.
She was medically unable to speak.
The local authority knew this — and used it.

The hearing proceeded in silence.
The children were removed in minutes.
And the applicant responded in the only language the system seems to understand: a formal Set Aside Application.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Total absence of accessible notice
Procedural exclusion of a disabled litigant
No legal representation at hearing
Live retaliation during ongoing Judicial Review and civil claim (N1)
Unlawful seizure of children without documentation or post-order notice

This wasn’t a procedural oversight.
It was a calculated removal engineered to avoid scrutiny and prevent participation.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this isn’t a parenting matter — it’s a jurisdictional breach in plain sight.
Because the system excluded a mother from her own children’s removal during active litigation.
Because disability isn’t silence. And silence isn’t consent.
Because the care order didn’t survive review — it collapsed the moment scrutiny touched it.

And now, we are documenting its unravelling.

IV. Violations

Family Procedure Rules, Part 18 – unlawfully obtained ex parte order
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to accommodate and discriminatory treatment
Children Act 1989 – removal without proper threshold or hearing rights
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – fair trial and family life
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – violated by procedural exclusion
Public Law Principles – retaliation during judicial oversight

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a mother can be excluded from court due to her disability.
We do not accept that legal silence constitutes lawful consent.
We do not accept that no one knew — they all did.
We do not accept that this order was valid.
We archive the application that will erase it.

⟡ 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.

She Wasn’t Panicking. She Was Remembering.

⟡ She Said “Every Time I Talk, I’m Punished.” ⟡
When panic becomes predictable and communication becomes a risk.

Filed: 23 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-20
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-23_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_PanicDisclosure_AbandonmentCycle_SewerGasTrigger.pdf
A raw and unrehearsed disclosure of trauma-induced panic and communication anxiety — triggered not by crisis, but by the institutional responses to it. This isn’t just an email. It’s the x-ray of ten years of safeguarding misuse, social worker escalation, and medically dangerous silence.

I. What Happened

She said thank you.
She said panic attacks happen when she tries to explain herself — and people either call social workers or vanish.
She said she’s terrified of her own breathing.
She said she enjoys talking — but panic now lives in her inbox.
She said the attacks began when the sewer gas did.
She said it without formatting or strategy.
Just truth — sent quietly.

II. What the Email Establishes

That panic attacks are linked to a longstanding cycle of retaliation and abandonment
That the sewer gas leak in October 2023 triggered sustained trauma and physical health deterioration
That communication — even seeking help — has become its own risk
That the parent has no safe mode of disclosure left
That this entire system runs on the fear of being punished for speaking

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because this is what procedural harassment looks like when it reaches the body.
Because when emails cause panic,
and help invites surveillance,
you’re no longer being supported — you’re being documented.
And because panic is not pathology — it’s pattern recognition.

IV. Violations Identified

Retaliatory Activation of Social Services Following Honest Disclosures
Institutional Conditioning of Silence Through Procedural Punishment
Failure to Provide Mental Health-Sensitive Communication Accommodations
Medical Neglect Following Known Environmental Hazard (Sewer Gas Leak)
Multi-Agency Abandonment After Disclosure

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not dramatic.
It was deliberate.
A woman wrote a thank-you email — and included the entire psychological map of her destruction.
Not because she wanted to.
But because silence is dangerous now too.
Every time she talks, they respond with escalation.
So she stopped talking.
And started archiving instead.

You Were Warned. You Just Chose Not to Act.

⟡ She Filed the Lawsuit. Then She Filed This Email. ⟡
When they said “we weren’t informed,” she published the proof — with timestamps.

Filed: 24 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULTI/EMAIL-15
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-24_SWANK_Email_MultiDefendants_N1ClaimNotice_DisabilityImpact.pdf
An email sent to legal firms, council officers, safeguarding leads, and NHS staff — formally notifying all parties of the submitted N1 civil claim while documenting the physical health damage caused by Westminster’s harassment. They cannot now say they didn’t know.

I. What Happened

On 24 February 2025, the parent made it official.
The N1 Claim Form had been submitted.
She emailed every relevant party — Westminster, RBKC, NHS, solicitors, and safeguarding reps.
She attached the form. She logged the health damage.
She named names. She requested clinical escalation.
And then, she filed this letter — not for help, but for record.

II. What the Email Establishes

That the N1 legal claim was actively filed and served via formal notice
That multiple institutional actors were directly copied, including lawyers and doctors
That the retaliatory effects of a social worker visit caused worsened disability symptoms
That medical corroboration (via Dr Rafiq) was requested for legal purposes
That all parties were on notice — before escalation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because lawsuits don’t just start in court — they start in inboxes.
Because “we didn’t know” is the first lie of every institution.
And because if your behaviour is causing medical injury, you don’t deserve plausible deniability.
You deserve publication.

IV. Violations Identified

Disability Harassment Resulting in Medical Deterioration
Institutional Retaliation After Legal Proceedings Began
Failure to Protect a Medically Exempt Parent
Cross-Agency Neglect of Procedural and Legal Notifications
Ongoing Contact in Violation of Safeguarding Protocol and Litigation Boundaries

V. SWANK’s Position

They were informed.
They were copied.
They were cc’d on the consequences of their own misconduct.
There is no “we didn’t know.”
There is only “you continued anyway.”
This isn’t an email. It’s a subpoena with a send button.

She Couldn't Speak — So They Called a Meeting to Punish Her for It.

⟡ She Told Them She Couldn't Speak — They Called It Resistance. ⟡
When a disabled mother requests lawful adjustments, Westminster calls it “non-cooperation.”

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-12
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PLO_Kirsty_DisabilityAdjustmentRequest.pdf
Formal written request for legal accommodations by a medically exempt parent facing PLO proceedings — ignored by Westminster Children’s Services in direct violation of disability law.

I. What Happened

Faced with a pre-proceedings meeting she physically could not attend without medical risk, a disabled U.S. mother submitted this written request:
A request for lawful adjustments.
A request for alternatives to verbal participation.
A request to be treated as a human being — not an obstacle.
Westminster responded by proceeding anyway.

II. What the Request Establishes

That the parent clearly and pre-emptively notified Westminster of her disabilities
That she requested alternative means of communication as permitted under law
That she invoked her rights under the Equality Act and safeguarding fairness
That the response was not accommodation — but procedural force

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because refusal to speak is not non-cooperation when speaking risks a medical event.
Because safeguarding does not mean bulldozing disabled parents into statutory frameworks they cannot physically navigate.
And because when lawful requests are ignored, they become legal liabilities.
This isn’t a request for help.
It’s evidence.

IV. Violations Identified

Denial of Reasonable Adjustment
Discrimination Against Medically Exempt Parent
Procedural Misconduct Under PLO
Breach of Duty to Accommodate Disabilities
Abuse of Safeguarding Framework for Retaliatory Purposes

V. SWANK’s Position

This letter is not a plea. It is a record.
It confirms that Westminster was given full legal notice — and chose escalation over ethics.
It confirms that disability law was not misunderstood — it was ignored.
It confirms that when the parent spoke clearly, the institution refused to listen.
And so now, we file.

Escalation as Punishment: When Disability Is Treated as Defiance

⟡ “You Called It Escalation, We Call It Retaliation” ⟡
A pre-action protocol letter becomes a landmark record of public law abuse, disability breach, and safeguarding misuse dressed up as care.

Filed: 25 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-25_SWANK_Legal_Westminster_PLOEqualityBreachPreAction.pdf
Formal pre-action notice challenging the unlawful escalation of PLO proceedings despite known disability status and lack of safeguarding threshold.

I. What Happened

On 25 April 2025, the claimant (Polly Chromatic) issued formal notice of intent to seek Judicial Review after Westminster Children’s Services escalated her family into Public Law Outline (PLO) proceedings without any lawful basis. Despite extensive written medical evidence — including a psychiatric report dated 26 November 2024 — confirming her need for written-only communication due to severe respiratory and psychiatric disabilities, the local authority categorised this clinical adjustment as “non-compliance.”

The letter outlines breaches of the Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998, and public law principles of fairness, and formally demands withdrawal from the PLO process.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Unlawful escalation to PLO despite absence of safeguarding threshold
Mischaracterisation of written engagement as defiance
Breach of medically prescribed communication adjustments
Discriminatory treatment of a disabled parent in legal proceedings
Institutional use of child protection frameworks to retaliate against rights-based advocacy

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This letter captures the moment when procedural misuse crosses into deliberate reprisal. Westminster not only ignored a decade of medical evidence — it actively escalated proceedings to punish a disabled mother for invoking her legal rights.

SWANK London Ltd. archived this document to:

Expose systemic abuse of the PLO process against whistleblowers
Document a textbook breach of Sections 20 and 149 of the Equality Act
Establish a public record of legal intimidation masquerading as child protection

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 149 (public sector equality duty)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life)
Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding framework
Common Law – Breach of legitimate expectation, procedural fairness, and proportionality
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Article 21 (access to communication)

V. SWANK’s Position

This case reflects the growing pattern of weaponising safeguarding against disabled and vocal parents. When Westminster social workers dismiss lawful communication boundaries as obstruction, and then escalate under PLO frameworks without lawful foundation, the result is not protection — it’s persecution.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for immediate regulatory scrutiny, including:

Audit of all PLO decisions involving known disabled parents
Disciplinary review of staff who labelled medical adjustments as “non-engagement”
Compensation and public acknowledgement of wrongdoing

Jurisdiction Was Asserted. They Responded with a Threat. The Audit Was Filed. Westminster Called It Safeguarding.

⟡ The Jurisdiction Was Clear. The Retaliation Was Immediate. ⟡
A PLO Letter Arrived From Westminster — After the Audit Demand, After the Cease Notice, After the Warnings.

Filed: 11 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RETAL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-11_SWANK_JurisdictionReassertion_PLO_Retaliation_Westminster.pdf
A formal jurisdictional enforcement, issued after Westminster responded to an evidentiary audit with procedural threats and diagrammatic intimidation.

I. What Happened

On 24 May 2025, Westminster Children’s Services received a formal audit demand and cease notice from SWANK London Ltd. Instead of responding to the audit — or acknowledging the cease instruction — they escalated. A PLO letter was delivered, complete with a “Words and Pictures” insert better suited to a propaganda workshop than a safeguarding file.

It was not oversight. It was orchestration.

This letter, filed 11 June 2025, establishes once and for all: SWANK has jurisdiction. Westminster chose retaliation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Westminster’s legal threat was timed to follow an audit demand
That disability adjustments were erased post-notification
That safeguarding language was deployed in the shadow of legal exposure
That no statutory grounds were presented — only stylised panic
That retaliation can wear the costume of care, but not convincingly

This was not a misunderstanding. It was a manoeuvre.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when public institutions are audited and retaliate instead of respond, they become the subject of the record.
Because “Words and Pictures” isn’t communication — it’s narrative laundering.
Because the Equality Act isn’t optional, and audit immunity isn’t a privilege.
And because Westminster underestimated what happens when a company exists solely to record their misconduct.

They called it safeguarding.
We called it: escalation in a borrowed font.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept retroactive legal panic dressed as concern.
We do not accept that “pictures” count as lawful response to an audit.
We do not accept institutional retaliation disguised as child protection.

Let the record show:
The Director was not unsafe.
The audit was not ambiguous.
The response was not lawful.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was bureaucratic theatre — staged after the curtain had already fallen.

The Investigation That Wasn’t: Police Inaction, Evidentiary Silence, and the Cost of Being Ignored

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-23-MPS-INVFAIL

Filed Under: Investigative Farce, Evidentiary Apathy, State-Sanctioned Incompetence

Filed By:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2 6JL
✉ director@swanklondon.com

Date: 23 May 2025

To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
Customer Service Centre
PO Box 473, Warrington WA4 6QP

and/or

Metropolitan Police Service
Professional Standards Department
PO Box 78553, London SE11 1YU

🛑 FORMAL COMPLAINT

Failure to Investigate with Due Diligence, Law, or Basic Professional Decency

📜 A Complaint Composed in Disgust and Documentation

Dear Sir or Madam,

Consider this not a request, but a written reckoning.
I am lodging a formal complaint concerning the Metropolitan Police Service’s prolonged failure to investigate critical incidents concerning myself and my children — with anything resembling professionalism, integrity, or law.

🕳 Background: The Investigation That Wasn’t

Across 2023–2024, a series of investigations were carried out — or rather, cosplayed — by the Metropolitan Police. These actions, ostensibly initiated to assess incidents involving our family, failed to meet the most minimal standards of lawful inquiry.

Instead, I was presented with an illusion of investigation: all form, no substance.
All uniform, no truth.

⚖️ Key Failures Committed (Repeatedly, Without Shame)

• Critical CCTV and corroborating evidence ignored
• Witnesses left uninterviewed — as though relevance were optional
• Written submissions from me disregarded — no acknowledgment, no incorporation
• Process substituted with prejudice, escalating confusion into procedural harm
• Lasting damage — emotional, reputational, legal — inflicted by omission

📚 Legal Frameworks Breached (Spectacularly)

Breach of public duty to conduct timely, impartial, and thorough investigations
Violation of Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 — Right to a Fair Trial
Negligence and maladministration under statutory duties
Procedural sabotage masquerading as investigative discretion

The result: not just error, but deliberate underreach — a systemic shrug in the face of documented vulnerability.

🧾 Remedies Formally Demanded

I hereby require the following actions:

A comprehensive independent review of the case and its evidentiary suppression
An explanation — preferably in writing, not muttered through procedural fog — as to why key materials were ignored
Internal accountability for officers involved in negligent conduct
Written confirmation that new procedural safeguards will be instated
A formal written apology, addressed appropriately, acknowledging harm, failure, and the institutional rot underlying both

🖋 Communication Clause

Due to disability, I am formally exempt from verbal interaction.
This includes phone calls, in-person discussions, and other auditory performances.
All correspondence must be in writing only — a medium institutions find inconvenient precisely because it is permanent.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and outline the steps that shall (or shall not) follow.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ noellebonneannee@me.com

“We do not scream. We file.” — Mirror Court Motto

This Isn’t Care. It’s Control. A Criminal Complaint from the Mirror Court.

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-Crim-Misc

Filed Under: Velvet Retaliation, Safeguarding Farce, Procedural Sadism

📣 PUBLIC NOTICE

For Immediate Archival & Consequence
29 May 2025

🛡 A Criminal Complaint from the Velvet Front

Safeguarding Rewritten as Retaliation. Care Recast as Control.

LONDON, UK — A disabled mother and her four asthmatic children have issued a formal criminal complaint alleging misconduct by multiple public agencies:

Westminster Children’s Services
NHS Trusts
The Metropolitan Police

What’s been called “protection” was, in practice, a choreographed regime of cruelty — featuring falsified referrals, unlawful interrogations of children, and a pointed refusal to accommodate diagnosed medical conditions.

🩺 The Complainant

Polly Chromatic

Diagnosed with:
• Eosinophilic asthma
• Muscle tension dysphonia
• PTSD (acquired courtesy of institutional theatre)

Her four children also carry asthma diagnoses. Instead of care, they were offered intrusion. Instead of protection, escalation. Instead of support, a silent siege.

“This isn’t child protection. It’s punishment by process,”
— Polly Chromatic

⚠️ Highlights from the Complaint:

• Fabricated safeguarding referrals filed after medical discrimination
• Children questioned unlawfully, without representation
• Disability adjustments ignored — written-only contact denied
• PLO and CP escalation used punitively
• Police refused to obtain CCTV that would have exonerated the family

⚖️ Cited Breaches Include:

• Equality Act 2010
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Children Act 1989
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The complaint — elegantly titled
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation” —
has been submitted to:
• Metropolitan Police – Directorate of Professional Standards
• Social Work England
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

🧾 Additional Proceedings

The family has also filed:
• A civil claim (N1) for damages exceeding £23 million
• A judicial review (N461) challenging unlawful safeguarding escalation

🖋 Access Protocol

Ms Simlett is medically exempt from verbal communication.
All inquiries must be submitted in writing only.

📜 Written Communication Statement:
www.swanklondon.com/p/written-communication-statement.html

📮 Contact

✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Secure access to the legal bundle available on request.

Met Police Violate Disability Rights in Retraumatising Home Visit – 3 June 2025

✉️ Dispatch No. 2025-06-03-MET-DISABILITY-BREACH

Filed Under: Police Disregard, Disability Misconduct, Doorstep Theatre

To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
📧 enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

Subject:
Formal Complaint – Metropolitan Police Violation of Disability Adjustments (3 June 2025)

Date: 3 June 2025

Dear IOPC Complaints Team,

Consider this a formal submission to the archive of modern British institutional failure. I refer to the unjustifiable attendance of Metropolitan Police officers at my private residence on the morning of 3 June 2025—an incident so flagrant in its disregard for disability law that one wonders whether training has been entirely replaced by improvisational theatre.

The facts, which I presume will not be contested:

A clearly visible sign affixed to my door specifying no contact except in writing
A documented and longstanding communication adjustment, known to multiple agencies
Diagnosed conditions including:
- Eosinophilic Asthma
- Muscle tension dysphonia
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — the latter acquired not through random misfortune, but through sustained institutional harassment

Despite these safeguards, officers arrived uninvited, unannounced, and wholly uninformed. This intrusion followed closely on the heels of a threatening email from a local safeguarding officer — an email which had already triggered a psychological spiral requiring days of recovery. The police arrival escalated the harm into the physical realm: my hands went numb, my breathing constricted, and I was once again re-traumatised by the very systems meant to offer protection.

⚖️ Legal Grounds for IOPC Scrutiny

I am formally requesting the IOPC to log and investigate this incident on the following legal foundations:

Breach of the Equality Act 2010 – failure to honour a pre-established disability adjustment
Violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – unwarranted intrusion into private life
Institutional negligence in the handling of known clinical vulnerabilities
Re-traumatisation through coercive and unauthorised contact

For the avoidance of doubt: this was not a welfare check. It was a procedural violation, cloaked in bureaucratic indifference, carried out by uniformed agents of state harm.

The original letter to the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Department is enclosed for your reference. Kindly confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a formal case reference. One must presume that even in the realm of police oversight, paperwork still counts for something.

Yours, with documented dismay,

Polly Chromatic

When Safeguarding Becomes Surveillance: A Home Educator’s Dispatch from the Frontlines of Procedural Retaliation

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-23–OFSTED–SAFEGUARDING-BY-THEATRE
Filed Under: Performative Protection · Procedural Vengeance · Education in Exile
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com | 🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 23 May 2025

🏛 Subject:

A Formal Complaint to Ofsted

On the Misuse of Safeguarding to Punish Lawful, Disabled Home Educators

Dear Ofsted,

Permit me to raise what I wish I could call an anomaly, but which appears instead to be an institutional reflex: the abuse of safeguarding frameworks to discipline disabled, law-abiding home educators for daring to conduct their affairs on their own terms.

I am the mother of four children. They are well. They are educated. They are thriving in a home education environment supported by documentation, structure, and what can only be called excellence. And yet — in 2024 and 2025 — I found myself repeatedly surveilled, summoned, and scandalised under the false banner of child protection, for no reason other than my refusal to attend verbal meetings that contravene my medical care plan.

🩺 The “Risk” They Couldn’t Find

Social workers from Westminster and RBKC escalated to CIN and CPP status, not because of risk to children — but because of risk to their authority. Specifically:

I invoked a written-only communication adjustment, clinically mandated and legally protected under the Equality Act 2010.
I declined to perform emotional compliance in person.
I refused the theatre. And for that, the curtain fell — on reason, law, and proportionality.

📚 Misuse in Costume:

Repeated safeguarding referrals despite zero evidence of neglect
Intrusive visits with no pedagogical basis
Harmful interference in learning schedules
Psychological distress induced in my children for the crime of being parented by a disabled adult who keeps immaculate notes

This is not protection. It is harassment in policy drag.

⚖️ What I Ask Of You

That Ofsted formally acknowledge the following:

That safeguarding powers have been misapplied as punitive tools
That disabled home educators face discriminatory escalation for lawful boundary-setting
That local authorities be instructed and regulated accordingly, before the idea of home education is entirely colonised by suspicion

Let this dispatch serve as both a complaint and a chronicle — of what happens when policy is used not as a shield, but as a stick.

Yours in embroidered defiance,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

Police Report – Coercive Email Threat by Kirsty Hornal (WCC), Filed 2 June 2025 | ROC-10979-25-0101-IR

🗞️ Police Report Filed: Coercive Threat Issued by Public Official in Breach of Disability Law

Metropolitan Police Reference: ROC-10979-25-0101-IR

Date Submitted: 2 June 2025 at 14:01
Subject of Report: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services

📍 Formal Title for Archive and Parliamentary Index

Metropolitan Police Online Report: Coercive Threat by Local Authority Officer in Contravention of Disability Adjustments – 31 May 2025

💬 Stylised Summary – For Dignified Circulation

On 2 June 2025, a formal police report was filed by Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., documenting a coercive and retaliatory communication from Ms Kirsty Hornal, a social worker operating under Westminster City Council.
The report details an unsolicited and psychologically aggressive email dated 31 May 2025, in which Ms Hornal, following a series of active legal claims and formal complaints, threatened to escalate matters by “liaising with legal teams” to determine “whether this needs to be taken to court.”
This communication is identified as:
Unprovoked
Retaliatory in nature
In direct breach of a medically mandated, written-only communication protocol
Issued amidst formal judicial scrutiny of Westminster Children’s Services
The email has been reported as part of a broader pattern of procedural hostility, institutional abuse of process, and targeted discrimination against a disabled mother and civil litigant.

🩺 Contextual Grounds Provided to Police Authorities

The report included extensive evidentiary and medical context, such as:
Documented diagnoses of eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and complex PTSD, all of which render unsolicited contact medically unsafe
Prior safeguarding interference involving racialised assumptions and targeting of a mixed-heritage family
Westminster’s well-documented failure to comply with written communication accommodations
A wider pattern of institutional complicity, including previous failures by police and social services to act impartially or lawfully

🧛‍♀️ Named Individual and Institutional Web

Suspect: Ms Kirsty Hornal
Address on file: 4 Frampton Street, Westminster
Affiliation: Westminster Children’s Services
Associates also under scrutiny:
Mr Sam Brown – Safeguarding Officer
Ms Sarah Newman – Executive Director
Ms Rhiannon Hodgson – Management Liaison

🩸 Key Allegations Included in the Report

Issuing a coercive threat via electronic communication
Violation of a disability-adjusted communication protocol
Causing psychological trauma and respiratory exacerbation
Retaliation following formal legal and ombudsman complaints
Intersectional discrimination on the basis of disability and race
This report has now been appended to an active judicial archive, including:
Civil Claim (N1)
Injunction Request (N16A)
Judicial Review (N461)
Multiple regulatory complaints across SWE, LGSCO, ICO, NHS Trusts, and GMC
It shall also be published as part of the SWANK Public Archive documenting State-Enabled Retaliation Against Disabled Parents.

Email Threat of Supervision Order from Westminster Children’s Services – 29 May 2025

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-WCC-Supervision-Threat

Filed Under: Retaliation by Email, Misuse of Procedure, Digital Coercion Series

Re: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services
Subject Line: “Letter of Intent to Initiate Proceedings”
Date & Time of Offence: 29 May 2025, 11:14 BST

🎭 Threat Theatre, Act I: “Support and Assessment”

At precisely 11:14 on the morning of 29 May 2025, Ms Kirsty Hornal — Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services and repeat feature in our anthology of institutional misconduct — took it upon herself to author an electronic ultimatum, cunningly disguised as cooperative liaison.
Under the genteel veneer of “support and assessment,” Ms Hornal announced the Council’s alleged intention to pursue a Supervision Order over four named children: Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — an invocation so absurdly theatrical it could only be sincere in its threat.
The pretext? A letter “outlining concerns.”
The timing? Remarkably aligned with SWANK’s legal proceedings.
The delivery? Pastel and polite, but seething with bureaucratic menace.

🩺 Disability? What Disability.

A Written Communication Policy is, and has long been, in place.
It is formal, enforceable, and medically mandated.
Its terms? No unsolicited contact, no verbal engagements, no encrypted ambushes.
Its breach? A statutory violation.
Ms Hornal was well aware of this.
She emailed regardless.
What Westminster refers to as safeguarding now appears indistinguishable from systematic disregard for disabled protections.

📚 Interpretive Notes for the Archive – The Anatomy of a Threat

The letter’s declaration of legal intent is procedurally anomalous, devoid of risk foundation, and unaccompanied by lawful process.
The gratuitous naming of children — absent threshold or tribunal — functions as emotional leverage, not protection.
The phrase “we will be seeking a supervision order” is delivered without basis, evidence, or necessity.
This is not safeguarding.
This is email as intimidation.
This is casework as vendetta, cloaked in the sanitised dialect of child protection bureaucracy.
Let the record show: safeguarding has become the state’s soft weapon, and email, its preferred projectile.

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

My GP Wrote a Letter. Her Response Was Silence and a Deadline.

📎 SWANK Dispatch: She Was Told I Needed Aftercare. She Scheduled a Meeting Instead.

🗓️ 29 February 2024

Filed Under: meeting coercion, medical accommodation refusal, social worker escalation, child protection mapping abuse, GP letter ignored, RBKC cruelty, disability rights violated, safeguarding façade, legal correspondence disregarded

“My lawyer told you I was too sick.
My GP sent a letter.
You booked the meeting anyway —
and wouldn’t even explain why.”
— A Disabled Mother Being Railroaded Through Procedure

In this formal communication dated 29 February 2024, Polly Chromatic alerts Samira Issa that both her GP and legal counsel have advised postponing an upcoming child protection meeting. The reason? Polly’s medical condition — documented and ongoing — requires hospital treatment and aftercare.

Rather than postponing or offering written justification, Samira refused to adjust the timeline. No rationale was given. No compassion offered. Only the pressure to complete a mapping document by a looming deadline.

🧾 I. What Was Requested

That Samira complete her portion of the Mapping Document first
That all meetings be postponed in light of a GP-certified health crisis
That, if a delay was refused, written justification be provided for legal escalation and clinical review

🧯 II. What Was Ignored

GP medical documentation of urgent hospital and aftercare needs
The reality that Polly was not well enough to speak or attend meetings
Standard legal and ethical guidance around accommodating a disability under UK Equality Law
The very procedural logic of requiring the professional to fill out their form first

⚖️ III. SWANK Commentary

This isn’t just negligence.
It’s deliberate procedural aggression.

You’ve got a GP letter,
a lawyer’s instruction,
a disabled mother —
and still you ask her to perform for a form
you haven’t filled in yourself.

It’s not about the child.
It’s about compliance theatre.

Retaliation Is the Pattern. Disability Is the Excuse. EHRC Has the Complaint Now.

⟡ Formal Complaint Filed: Equality Act Violations Submitted to EHRC ⟡

“Disability discrimination isn’t a side issue. It’s the pattern. And now it’s in your hands, officially.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/EHRC/EQA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_EHRC_EqualityActComplaint_DisabilityDiscrimination_RetaliationSimlett.pdf
A formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission alleging systemic disability discrimination, retaliatory safeguarding misuse, and cross-agency failures by Westminster Children’s Services, RBKC, and NHS actors. Submitted in coordination with legal and regulatory filings across seven jurisdictions.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, writing on behalf of Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, submitted a formal complaint to the EHRC, outlining:

Disability discrimination through refusal to honour a written-only adjustment
Retaliation for exercising legal rights and protections
The use of safeguarding as a threat, not support
Intersectional harm across gender, disability, race, and parental status
Repeated procedural sabotage by Westminster, RBKC, and Pembridge Villas Surgery

The filing references:

Active complaints with GMC, NHS, LGSCO, ICO, Social Work England, Metropolitan Police, and the IOPC
Live proceedings in the High Court (N461 Judicial Review)
A publicly recorded record via SWANK London Ltd.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the UK’s equality regulator has been formally placed on notice
That this is not isolated discrimination, but systemic, state-enabled retaliation
That regulatory silence is now a documented part of the record
That this is a test of EHRC's actual function — and of public trust in human rights law

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when rights are denied, the regulator must be named.
Because every filing builds the case not just for justice — but for historical memory.
Because discrimination was the mechanism. Retaliation was the response. And public archiving is the remedy when neither apology nor reform is offered.

This is not a report.
It is a referral.
And if EHRC does not act, this post will stand as proof that they were given the chance.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that equality law applies only when convenient.
We do not accept that retaliation is the cost of self-advocacy.
We do not accept that silence from regulators means the harm wasn’t real.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If rights are violated,
We document the violation.
If justice is delayed,
We preserve the delay.
And if equality is denied in writing,
We file that, too — permanently.

⟡ 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.

Complaint Closed. Mold Unresolved. Discrimination Unacknowledged.

⟡ “You Can Escalate Now. We’re Done Listening.” ⟡
RBKC Formally Closes Housing Complaint 12060761 Without Remediation — Forcing Escalation to the Ombudsman

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/EMAIL-06
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_RBKC_Stage2ComplaintClosure_HousingRef12060761.pdf
Summary: RBKC confirms final response to a housing complaint involving unsafe conditions and discrimination, referring the matter to the LGSCO with no resolution.

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, RBKC Housing emailed Polly Chromatic (Noelle Meline) to close formal complaint Ref: 12060761, concerning:

– Unsafe housing at 37 Elgin Crescent
– Disability discrimination
– Failure of Environmental Health
– Officer negligence and procedural retaliation

The email acknowledges the case closure and redirects the complainant to the Local Government Ombudsman for further action. No resolution or acknowledgment of substantive allegations is included.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• RBKC concluded its internal process without resolving the complaint
• No factual rebuttal or remedy was offered
• The burden now shifts to the complainant to escalate to the Ombudsman
• The referral is standardised — but the original harm is left unaddressed
• This closure reinforces the pattern of institutional evasion through procedural completion

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how systems close files without fixing harm.
Because this letter ends one jurisdiction and begins another — and both must be archived.
Because what isn’t said in the response is as damning as what is: no denial, no resolution, no accountability.

SWANK documents closure events as turning points — not endpoints.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that structural harm can be concluded administratively.
We do not accept that internal policy processes equal justice.
We do not accept that “you may now escalate” is a substitute for action.

This wasn’t a conclusion. This was a referral of responsibility.
And SWANK will archive every door they shut — before we knock on the next one.

⟡ 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.

This Wasn’t About Attendance. It Was About Control.

⟡ We Notified You of Medical Risk. You Sent an Attendance Warning. ⟡

Filed: 3 May 2022
Reference: SWANK/EDU/2022-DRAYTON-ANNABELLE
📎 Download PDF — 2022-05-03_SWANK_DraytonParkSchool_AttendanceLetter_Annabelle_MonitoringPretext.pdf

I. The Reply to Illness Was Surveillance

This letter from Drayton Park Primary School is many things:

Formatted with courtesy
Drenched in policy language
Seemingly benign

But it is, in fact, a procedural smokescreen — sent in response not to neglect or truancy, but to a parent’s prior disclosures of documented medical vulnerability.

You raised a health alert.
They raised a spreadsheet.

II. What the Letter Does (and Doesn’t) Say

It references:

Attendance thresholds
Code H
Authorised absences

It does not reference:

Medical conditions
Disability risk
The child’s asthma status
Prior communications

It is, as ever, the standard reply to complexity: flatten it into a metric.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because attendance letters are no longer neutral.
Because they now function as pre-safeguarding positioning tools, often sent after parents disclose medical concern or lawful refusal of in-person contact.

Because when you read enough of them, they all start to whisper:

We’re watching — but we won’t acknowledge what we see.

This is not just paperwork. It is soft jurisdictional threat, typeset in school stationery.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept attendance enforcement as a proxy for procedural intimidation.
We do not consider polite formatting to be protection.
We do not confuse concern for compliance.

Let the record show:

The child was medically vulnerable
The absences were lawful
The tone was disciplinary
And the letter — was archived

You Can’t Call It Safeguarding If the Documents Are Retaliatory.

⟡ The Threat Was Sent by Email. The Evidence Was Sent to the Regulator. ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-ATTACHMENTS
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_Attachments_KirstyHornal_EvidenceBundle_SafeguardingThreats_DisabilityBreach.pdf

I. You Can’t Call It Safeguarding If the Documents Are Retaliatory.

This evidentiary bundle, submitted to Social Work England, includes:

The 31 May 2025 “Supervision Order” threat email, issued outside lawful process
Prior written-only adjustment documentation, ignored in entirety
Evidence of no statutory trigger, no multi-agency consultation, and no lawful safeguarding basis
Procedural inconsistencies consistent with post-complaint retaliation

This wasn’t care.
It was PDF-backed coercion — and now it’s regulator-reviewed.

II. What She Attached, What She Omitted

Kirsty Hornal:

Referenced “concerns” with no timeline, no evidence, and no consultation
Failed to cite any procedural threshold or legal duty
Sent attachments as intimidation, not information
Used child welfare language to discipline a mother for filing complaints

What she forgot to redact, we remembered to file.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because threatening a supervision order in retaliation for lawful criticism is not safeguarding — it’s procedural warfare.
Because if one email can risk four children’s futures, then one file can end a career.
Because when documents become weapons, we catalogue every blade.

Let the record show:

The email was real
The threat was unlawful
The harm was foreseeable
And SWANK — filed the entire evidence set with institutional precision

This isn’t a she-said scenario.
It’s a she-sent, we-filed, they-review sequence in timestamped order.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept threats disguised as support.
We do not allow safeguarding to be used as reputational defence.
We do not redact retaliation when it arrives with attachments.

Let the record show:

They sent a threat.
We sent the archive.
They framed it as care.
And SWANK — called it by its legal name.

This isn’t a misunderstanding.
It’s evidence of misconduct — and we filed it while the ink was still warm.

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Request 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

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-23-MPS-INVFAIL

🛑 FORMAL COMPLAINT

Failure to Investigate with Due Diligence, Law, or Basic Professional Decency

📜 A Complaint Composed in Disgust and Documentation

🕳 Background: The Investigation That Wasn’t

⚖️ Key Failures Committed (Repeatedly, Without Shame)

📚 Legal Frameworks Breached (Spectacularly)

🧾 Remedies Formally Demanded

🖋 Communication Clause

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-Crim-Misc

📣 PUBLIC NOTICE

🛡 A Criminal Complaint from the Velvet Front

Safeguarding Rewritten as Retaliation. Care Recast as Control.

🩺 The Complainant

⚠️ Highlights from the Complaint:

⚖️ Cited Breaches Include:

🧾 Additional Proceedings

🖋 Access Protocol

📮 Contact

✉️ Dispatch No. 2025-06-03-MET-DISABILITY-BREACH

⚖️ Legal Grounds for IOPC Scrutiny

🏛 Subject:

A Formal Complaint to Ofsted

🩺 The “Risk” They Couldn’t Find

📚 Misuse in Costume:

⚖️ What I Ask Of You

🗞️ Police Report Filed: Coercive Threat Issued by Public Official in Breach of Disability Law

Metropolitan Police Reference: ROC-10979-25-0101-IR

Date Submitted: 2 June 2025 at 14:01Subject of Report: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services

📍 Formal Title for Archive and Parliamentary Index

Metropolitan Police Online Report: Coercive Threat by Local Authority Officer in Contravention of Disability Adjustments – 31 May 2025

💬 Stylised Summary – For Dignified Circulation

🩺 Contextual Grounds Provided to Police Authorities

🧛‍♀️ Named Individual and Institutional Web

Suspect: Ms Kirsty HornalAddress on file: 4 Frampton Street, WestminsterAffiliation: Westminster Children’s ServicesAssociates also under scrutiny:Mr Sam Brown – Safeguarding OfficerMs Sarah Newman – Executive DirectorMs Rhiannon Hodgson – Management Liaison

🩸 Key Allegations Included in the Report

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-WCC-Supervision-Threat

Filed Under: Retaliation by Email, Misuse of Procedure, Digital Coercion Series

Re: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s ServicesSubject Line: “Letter of Intent to Initiate Proceedings”Date & Time of Offence: 29 May 2025, 11:14 BST

🎭 Threat Theatre, Act I: “Support and Assessment”

🩺 Disability? What Disability.

📚 Interpretive Notes for the Archive – The Anatomy of a Threat

🖋 Filed By:

Polly ChromaticDirector, SWANK London Ltd.Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2✉ director@swanklondon.com⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

🧾 I. What Was Requested

🧯 II. What Was Ignored

⚖️ III. SWANK Commentary

⟡ Formal Complaint Filed: Equality Act Violations Submitted to EHRC ⟡

I. What Happened

Date Submitted: 2 June 2025 at 14:01
Subject of Report: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services

Suspect: Ms Kirsty Hornal
Address on file: 4 Frampton Street, Westminster
Affiliation: Westminster Children’s Services
Associates also under scrutiny:
Mr Sam Brown – Safeguarding Officer
Ms Sarah Newman – Executive Director
Ms Rhiannon Hodgson – Management Liaison

Re: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services
Subject Line: “Letter of Intent to Initiate Proceedings”
Date & Time of Offence: 29 May 2025, 11:14 BST

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy