R (Chromatic) v. Hornal (No. 1) [2025] SWANK 31 Disability was the context. Not the inconvenience.

---

⟡ Misconduct Referral: Kirsty Hornal – Social Work England Case PT-10633 ⟡
Chromatic v. The Adjustment They Chose to Misread [2025] SWANK 31 — “They called it non-engagement. We called it written.”

Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PT10633-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_Social_Work_England_PT10633_Kirsty_Hornal.pdf
Misconduct referral to SWE for disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding by WCC social worker Kirsty Hornal.

---

I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as director of SWANK London Ltd., received formal correspondence from Social Work England (SWE) confirming that her concerns regarding social worker Kirsty Hornal had been triaged and logged under Case Reference PT-10633. The concerns included:

• Failure to provide reasonable adjustments (written-only communication) during a Child Protection Conference

• Misrepresentation of said adjustment as “non-engagement”

• Escalation of safeguarding procedures directly following formal complaints and video-documented visits

• Disregard of medical evidence affirming the need for written-only interaction

SWE requested further information to determine whether an investigation will be opened into Hornal’s fitness to practise.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Written communication was requested on medical grounds — and rebranded as defiance.

• A procedural accommodation was turned into a justification for escalation.

• Formal complaints triggered retaliatory safeguarding referrals — a known institutional pattern.

• A disabled parent was set up to “fail” an engagement test designed to ignore her exemption.

• Hornal acted not as a safeguarding professional, but as a policy custodian in crisis management mode.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because “non-engagement” is now a euphemism for non-compliance with discrimination.
Because the system prefers silence over access, and punishment over accommodation.
Because this wasn’t about a child. It was about narrative control.
Because every safeguarding referral made after a complaint is a form of reputational retaliation — and SWANK names it.
Because the question isn’t whether Hornal “followed protocol” — it’s whether protocol now includes disability sabotage.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010, §§20 & 21 – Failure to make, and then penalise, reasonable adjustments

• Children Act 1989, §22 – Failure to safeguard and promote welfare of the child through fair process

• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – Interference with family life via discriminatory conduct

• Social Work England Professional Standards – 1.6, 3.2, 5.1 – Respect for rights, evidence-based decisions, and harm prevention

---

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t social work. It was professional defamation by procedural fiction.
We do not accept escalation built from misinterpretation.
We do not accept safeguarding used as institutional retribution.
We do not accept practitioners who perform protocol while punishing parents for surviving.
Hornal did not act alone — but she acted formally. That is enough.
SWANK will file. SWE will decide. And the archive will remain open.

---

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Westminster – On the Administrative Refusal to Acknowledge Disability Despite Voluminous Written Notification

---

⟡ “Perhaps They Misplaced the Diagnosis. All Twenty of Them.” ⟡
How Many Written Notifications Does It Take to Trigger Reasonable Adjustments?

Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DIS-FAIL-0125
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-15_SWANK_DisabilityNotices_WrittenDeclarations_MultipleAuthorities.pdf
1-line summary: Master record of formal disability disclosures submitted to Westminster and affiliated agencies from Jan 2024–Jan 2025.

---

I. What Happened

Between January 2024 and January 2025, Polly Chromatic, a disabled mother of four disabled children, sent over a dozen formal notifications to Westminster Children’s Services, their agents, NHS practitioners, and social care affiliates. These letters made explicit written reference to:

• Her diagnosed muscle tension dysphonia

• Chronic and severe eosinophilic asthma

• Her children’s shared respiratory vulnerabilities

• Medical trauma following a sewer gas exposure incident

• The family’s reliance on written communication and educational accommodation

Despite these repeated and timestamped efforts, not a single social worker or institutional actor took consistent steps to document, acknowledge, or adapt to the family’s medical status.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Procedural breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including failure to enact reasonable adjustments for known disability

• Neglect of statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 regarding disabled children's needs

• Retaliatory disregard for prior medical documentation, especially when communication occurred via email or Google Drive

• Willful minimisation of disability status, later leveraged to justify hostile interventions

• Medical discrimination under the guise of safeguarding concern — a direct contradiction to fact

This is not just administrative forgetfulness. It is targeted negligence with documented warnings.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is not the same as absence.

Because when a mother writes, informs, documents, attaches, shares, and re-sends — and the institution still pretends it was never told — that is not procedural lag. That is evidentiary defiance.

SWANK logged this to expose the illusion of ignorance often used to justify state aggression. These disability declarations prove that Westminster Children’s Services was fully informed, repeatedly, and in writing. Their failure to respond was not accidental. It was strategic.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989 – Sections 17 and 20 (disabled children’s welfare and parental participation)

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 and 149 (reasonable adjustments and public sector equality duty)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 ECHR (family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)

• Data Protection Act 2018 – Refusal to process known medical status appropriately

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t paperwork. It’s premeditation.

Every time Westminster social workers claimed Polly Chromatic "failed to engage" or "refused to speak," they already possessed clear evidence explaining why: medical injury, vocal trauma, and legal preference for written record.

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was evidence suppression.

And now the record speaks louder than the voice they silenced.

---

⟡ 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.

---

You Refused to Read, So I Nearly Died: The Evidence Bundle You Ignored

---

⟡ “Doorstep Panic Is a Disability Breach, Not a Delivery” ⟡
A stylised breakdown of police misconduct, procedural mockery, and systemic refusal to accommodate basic respiratory disabilities.

Filed: 12 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOL/DISABILITY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-12_SWANK_Record_MetropolitanPolice_DisabilityHarassmentEvidence.pdf
Formal evidentiary record compiling written disability notices ignored by public authorities despite medical necessity.

---

I. What Happened

Following repeated requests for written-only communication due to medically verified eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and panic disorder, the Metropolitan Police continued doorstep contact in full disregard of clinical instruction. This document compiles over sixty formal disability notices sent to multiple public officials between November 2024 and January 2025 — all of which were ignored, mishandled, or treated as optional.

The result: acute medical exacerbation, procedural breakdown, and evidence of systemic discrimination under both the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Repeated refusal to provide legally mandated disability adjustments

• Procedural harassment by police and social workers despite medical warnings

• Disregard of written-only communication preferences (verbal escalation instead)

• Disability-based mistreatment by schools, hospitals, legal teams, and local authority

• Direct causal link between ignored adjustments and deterioration of claimant’s health

---

III. Why SWANK Filed It

SWANK London Ltd. formally archived this document due to the scale, frequency, and clinical severity of the institutional misconduct involved. When over 60 written notifications across three months are systematically dismissed— not by one professional, but by an inter-agency network — this is not administrative failure. It is a coordinated refusal to uphold disability law, weaponised through procedural convenience and tone-deaf hostility.

This record was filed to:

• Publicly document the paper trail of ignored medical warnings

• Create an evidentiary foundation for legal retaliation

• Show regulators that SWANK London Ltd. will not wait for tragedy before acting

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 19, and 20 (failure to make reasonable adjustments)

• Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 8, and 14 (inhuman treatment, private life, discrimination)

• Police Conduct Regulations 2020 – Breach of duty of care and disability sensitivity

• United Nations CRPD – Failure to respect communication preferences as a fundamental right

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This evidentiary bundle has been archived to demonstrate widespread institutional unwillingness to accommodate disabled residents — even where simple email-based adjustments would have sufficed. The refusal to adapt led directly to asthma attacks, inability to access services, and psychiatric destabilisation — all legally foreseeable and preventable harms.

SWANK London Ltd. urges regulatory and ombudsman bodies to immediately review Metropolitan Police disability protocol and issue sanctions where failure is systemic.

---

⟡ 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.