🦴 THE RETALIATORY TRIAD
On the Criminal Referral of Three Public Officials Who Mistook Retaliation for Governance and Harassment for Safeguarding
Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 21 June 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC-LE-CRIMINAL-01
PDF Filename: 2025-06-21_SWANK_CriminalReferral_Hornal_Newman_Brown_ComplicityAndRetaliation.pdf
Summary: A triple-barrelled criminal referral addressing weaponised safeguarding, institutional retaliation, and the procedural psychopathy of Westminster City Council.
I. What Happened
On 21 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. — having catalogued over 300 related incidents of institutional misconduct — filed a formal criminal referral to the Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police, naming:
Kirsty Hornal – Social Worker
Sam Brown – Deputy Team Manager
Sarah Newman – Executive Director of Children’s Services
The document outlines a coordinated retaliatory operation involving doorstep surveillance, medical disregard, false safeguarding, and procedural entrapment — all strategically escalated after the complainant initiated legal filings and published public documentation.
It is, in every sense, a bureaucratic bloodletting.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This is not negligence.
This is orchestrated cruelty with case numbers.
The referral contains itemised evidence of:
Threatening emails dispatched within hours of legal service
Surveillance-style home visits timed to intimidate following SWANK posts
Coercive package drops used as harassment
Refusal to accommodate disability in direct defiance of written requests
Systematic misuse of safeguarding as a tool for suppression, not protection
Institutional complicity led by Sarah Newman — the architect of inaction
The conduct described is not a procedural misstep — it is a disciplinary ideology masquerading as child protection.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because we are now post-report, post-petition, post-permission.
This is not a cry for reconsideration.
This is a ceremonial condemnation of procedural evil.
You don’t gaslight a disabled mother for a year and expect her not to file.
You don’t ignore her written-only request and then charge her with obstruction.
You don’t weaponise safeguarding and assume no one is counting.
This document counts — in paragraph, statute, and sworn declaration.
And now it is on file, on record, and on the public stage.
IV. Violations
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Repeated institutional intimidation
Equality Act 2010 (Sections 15, 19, 20) – Disability-based exclusion and obstruction
Common Law – Malfeasance in Public Office
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 (inhuman treatment), Article 8 (private life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)
Data Protection Act 2018 – Unlawful access, contact, and record manipulation under false pretense
V. SWANK’s Position
This referral represents a prosecutorial severance from the theatre of pretended concern.
Kirsty Hornal, Sam Brown, and Sarah Newman no longer operate in the grey space of procedural ambiguity —
They are now formally named defendants in a criminal evidentiary audit that spans:
Medical violations
Legal sabotage
Social work fraud
And cross-jurisdictional retaliation
To ignore this document is to declare open war on the rule of law itself.
Let the record show:
They were warned.
They were witnessed.
And they were filed.
⚖️ 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.