⟡ PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT – KIRSTY HORNAL ⟡
Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-MISCONDUCT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-17_Core_PC-143_SWE_KirstyHornal-ProceduralMisconduct_Complaint.pdf
Summary: A formal complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services, documenting the misuse of safeguarding authority, physical and electronic surveillance, and psychological intimidation of minors under the false banner of “care.”
I. What Happened
On 15 June 2025, an unidentified man in a helmet appeared at the family’s door carrying a grey plastic-wrapped parcel.
He knocked, called out “Hello?”, and—without consent or identification—opened the private mail chute and looked into the home.
No delivery occurred.
No agency was named.
No purpose was declared.
All four children were present.
All four were frightened.
This took place after Westminster had been ordered to cease contact following jurisdictional withdrawal.
The visit bore every hallmark of surveillance disguised as delivery: choreography, timing, and plausible deniability.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• That Westminster conducted or condoned unlawful contact under the guise of welfare.
• That physical surveillance constitutes a safeguarding breach, not a safeguarding act.
• That the intrusion was timed to coincide with pending audit filings—retaliation, not oversight.
• That the act meets the threshold for harassment under both civil and criminal law.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To preserve visual evidence of intimidation after official withdrawal of consent.
• To record the continuity between administrative ego and procedural misconduct.
• To assert that surveillance without warrant is not “concern”—it is institutional voyeurism.
• Because documentation is defence, and publication is deterrent.
IV. Violations & Authorities
• Children Act 1989 — emotional harm via unlawful contact.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — repeated unwanted communication.
• Equality Act 2010 — procedural intimidation against a disabled parent.
• ECHR Article 8 — breach of private and family life.
• UK GDPR — non-consensual visual data capture.
• SWE Professional Standards (2021) — breaches of honesty, integrity, and boundary maintenance.
V. SWANK’s Position
“Safeguarding is not surveillance.
Concern does not peek through letterboxes.”
SWANK London Ltd. holds that Ms Hornal’s conduct transformed social work into stagecraft—a pantomime of power for an audience of one: herself.
The incident is not a procedural misstep but a deliberate act of intimidation executed under colour of authority.
It will be cited in every subsequent filing as Exhibit A in the Collapse of Professional Integrity.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And misconduct deserves immortality.