⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed date: 21 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-KHPL-2025
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Addendum_KirstyHornal_ProceduralSuppressionRebuke.pdf
1-Line Summary: A velvet-lettered rebuke to the unlawful censorship of child participation, penned with disdain and Article 12.
ADDENDUM – Procedural Suppression, Contact Censorship, and the Misuse of Tone: A Formal Response to Ms. Hornal
Dear Ms. Hornal,
Thank you for your delayed reply to my Saturday morning communication.
For the record: I notified you in advance — not after the fact — of my intent to engage the children in lawful, age-appropriate, educational and participatory activities during contact. My objective was transparency.
Your response, arriving mid-afternoon on the day of contact, offered:
No statutory basis
No safeguarding rationale
And instead issued a veiled threat to terminate lawful contact if I proceeded.
Such a position is not only hostile, but legally indefensible — a procedural tantrum, dressed in institutional phrasing.
Let us be clear.
The activities in question are:
Educational,
Child-led,
ECHR-protected,
and court-relevant.
They relate directly to the children’s emerging party status, formalised through C2 applications already filed. Your assertion that even informing my children of their legal role is improper — in the absence of any court order barring such discussion — reflects a deeply concerning misuse of discretionary authority.
⚖️ Legal Provisions You Appear to Have Forgotten:
Article 6 ECHR – Right to a fair hearing, extended to minor applicants via procedural intermediaries.
Article 8 ECHR – Right to family life, including parent-child communication following trauma.
Children Act 1989, s.22(4) – Duty to involve parents in decisions affecting their children.
Equality Act 2010, ss.20 & 149 – Duty to implement known disability accommodations, especially for structured written communication.
UNCRC Article 12 – The child’s right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them.
And now, more seriously:
Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss.39 & 44
It is a criminal offence to cause or permit unnecessary suffering or emotional harm to a child in your care, whether by act or omission.Suppressing lawful communication, interfering with a child’s ability to express distress or understanding, or obstructing their participation in legal processes — especially when trauma is already present — may constitute wilful neglect under both domestic law and Article 3 ECHR.
You Have Now:
Repeatedly prohibited educational materials.
Obstructed the lawful signing of procedural forms.
Threatened to suspend contact over disclosures fully protected by law.
Created an environment where my children feel unable to speak freely with their mother — despite no order limiting communication.
🔍 Formal Notice
This correspondence — and the pattern of behaviour it exemplifies — will be submitted in a formal court addendum and added to the Kirsty Hornal Procedural Suppression Log within the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue.
Each obstruction.
Each tone-policed deviation from best practice.
Each performative misreading of safeguarding authority.
Logged, quoted, cross-referenced, and sent onward — for court, oversight, and history.
If the Local Authority intends to impose censorship over content, communication, or lawful procedural activity — without judicial authorisation — then you are now formally invited to disclose what statute, policy, or case law you believe entitles you to do so.
Yours (procedurally, not sentimentally),
Polly Chromatic
Litigant in Person & Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
director@swanklondon.com
.⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. 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 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and 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 protocols. © 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.