⟡ “The Bypass — Because Procedural Boundaries Are Not Optional” ⟡
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PROFESSIONAL/BOUNDARY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Urgent_Addendum_Kirsty_Hornal_Procedural_Violation.pdf
Urgent addendum reporting deliberate circumvention of procedural instructions by a social worker under active complaint and judicial review.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted an urgent addendum to Social Work England. She reported that Kirsty Hornal, already the subject of formal complaints and a live Judicial Review, initiated direct contact with both the children’s grandmother and father.
This contact was made:
Despite explicit, written instructions requiring all communications to go exclusively through her as the parent and legal party.
In the context of an open procedural dispute over the same safeguarding measures.
While Ms. Hornal’s conduct was under regulatory scrutiny.
This act was not a neutral administrative oversight — it was an active triangulation.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Disregard for clearly communicated procedural boundaries.
Continuation of coercive engagement designed to marginalise the parent’s role.
A pattern of behaviour that undermines trust in professional neutrality.
Escalation of institutional overreach in defiance of due process.
This was not a helpful update. It was a deliberate bypass.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when professionals ignore procedural instructions, it is not harmless — it is a strategic erasure of authority.
Because consent and clarity are not inconvenient technicalities, but the core of legitimate process.
Because every unrecorded boundary violation becomes precedent for the next.
And because SWANK does not allow these patterns to evaporate unexamined.
IV. Violations
Social Work England Professional Standards — Promote rights, respect views, uphold trust.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8: Right to private and family life.
Equality Act 2010 — Procedural fairness for disabled litigants.
Family Procedure Rules — Communication protocols in live proceedings.
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not professional discretion.
⟡ This was procedural contempt. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the quiet normalisation of boundary violations as standard practice.
We will document every bypass. Every time.
⟡ 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.