Retaliation in the Guise of Professional Judgment

---

⟡ SWANK Regulatory Dispatch ⟡

“We Filed to Protect the Record, Not the Practitioner”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_SWEReferral_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityMisuse.pdf

---

I. The Referral Was Not Emotional. It Was Evidentiary.

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. delivered a formal referral to Social Work England regarding the conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal, Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services.

The purpose?
To record conduct so profoundly misaligned with law, ethics, and dignity that no self-respecting archive could omit it.

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal composed an email which declared Westminster’s intention to “apply to court for a supervision order.” The problem?

• There was no risk.

• There was no meeting.

• There was no legal threshold.

• And it arrived in the context of active litigation and disability-based communication adjustments — all deliberately ignored.

This was not a safeguarding decision.
It was a professional tantrum dressed in statutory costume.

---

II. The Standards She Violated — And Why They Matter

We are not interested in polite reformulations of power abuse.
We are interested in consequences.

Ms Hornal’s actions breach the following Social Work England Code of Ethics:

• 1.6 – Failing to respect documented adjustments

• 1.9 – Misusing professional power

• 2.2 – Collapsing professional boundaries into personal retaliation

• 5.4 – Failing to raise concerns when harm is enacted through process

Her correspondence did not safeguard.
It destabilised, discriminated, and deliberately weaponised ambiguity.

---

III. The Institutional Style of Threat

This is not a rogue act. It is a style.

A recognisable state aesthetic:
➤ vague legalism
➤ denial of intent
➤ undermining of procedural safeguards
➤ and always, a tone of pastel professionalism to disarm the charge

But SWANK is not disarmed.
We file, we index, and we expose the choreography.

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
— She thought it was a brush-off. We filed it as Exhibit B.

---

IV. SWANK’s Position

Regulators exist not to polish misconduct but to excise it.
This referral does not seek re-education. It seeks removal.

Ms Hornal’s conduct demonstrates a professional who no longer serves the function she is paid to perform:
Safeguarding life, not threatening it.

We are not aggrieved. We are archiving.
And this record now lives forever — beyond HR, beyond FOIA evasion, and certainly beyond the reach of polite deletion.

---

⟡ 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.

---

This Was Never About Safeguarding

---

⟡ SWANK Referral Record ⟡

“We’re Not Reporting a Social Worker. We’re Reporting a Pattern.”
Filed: 3 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-03_SWANK_Referral_KirstyHornal_FitnessToPractise_ThreatMisuse.pdf

---

I. The Referent: Ms. Kirsty Hornal

This formal referral to Social Work England (SWE) concerns Kirsty Hornal, a Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services, whose conduct now requires regulatory scrutiny on the grounds of:

• Retaliatory safeguarding threats

• Disability discrimination

• Abuse of statutory language to exert coercive pressure

• Ethical erosion in public service

We are not interested in “poor communication.”
We are documenting the misuse of power — cloaked in procedure, deployed via email.

---

II. The Offence: A Threat With No Process

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal stated in writing that Westminster was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

There was no:

• Safeguarding trigger

• Risk assessment

• Multi-agency meeting

• Legal basis under the Children Act 1989

• Procedural compliance with PLO (Public Law Outline)

The only evident context was this:

The claimant — a disabled mother of four — had recently filed formal complaints, enforcement notices, and a civil claim against Westminster.

And in response, Ms Hornal threatened court action via email.

This is not safeguarding.
This is what safeguarding looks like when turned against the complainant.

---

III. Adjustment Breach and Retaliatory Tone

This email — like its follow-up — violated a written-only communication adjustment grounded in medical diagnosis, legal notice, and disability legislation.

The response to a formal demand letter (sent 24 May) was not resolution. It was redirection:

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
A statement so dry it almost smoked.

What it wasn’t:

• An answer

• A safeguarding explanation

• A lawful reply to medical or legal assertions

What it was:

• A refusal to acknowledge accountability

• An institutional threat, barely disguised as process

---

IV. Grounds for Referral (SWE Code of Ethics Breaches)

The referral identifies breaches of:

• 1.6 – Failure to respect disability adjustments

• 1.9 – Abuse of professional power

• 2.2 – Breakdown of professional boundaries

• 5.4 – Failure to report unsafe conduct by colleagues

This is not a matter of one message.
This is the culmination of a pattern — documented, repeated, and logged — wherein “safeguarding” has been distorted into a disciplinary weapon.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not report individuals out of pique. We report conduct that endangers.
And we archive it when institutions pretend it didn’t happen.

Westminster’s safeguarding practice — as personified by Ms. Hornal — has ceased to serve the child and begun to discipline the parent.
We decline to be disciplined for resisting harm.

This referral, and its accompanying exhibits, have been submitted to SWE, logged in a County Court claim, and appended to an ongoing archive of institutional retaliation.

Let the record show: we were calm. They escalated.

---

⟡ 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.

A Social Worker’s Sword: Misconduct, Discrimination, and the Art of Retaliation in Westminster

---

Referral to Social Work England

Regarding the Conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal – Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Contempt, and Abuse of Registered Authority

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

2 June 2025

To:
Professional Standards Directorate
Social Work England
✉ enquiries@socialworkengland.org.uk

---

Subject: Formal Fitness to Practise Referral – Kirsty Hornal (Westminster Children’s Services)

Concerning Misuse of Safeguarding Powers, Procedural Malfeasance, and Discriminatory Conduct toward a Disabled Litigant

Dear Professional Standards Team,

I write, with the requisite exhaustion of one too frequently targeted by institutional disdain, to raise a formal referral against Ms Kirsty Hornal, social worker employed by Westminster City Council Children’s Services, whose recent conduct has pierced the boundaries of professional decency and landed squarely in the domain of coercive misconduct.

---

🕯 The Incident in Brief — Though Nothing About It Was Briefly Endured

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal issued me an unsolicited and aggressive email, stating that “the local authority is applying to court for a supervision order.” The communication was:

• Unanchored in legal reality, risk evidence, or safeguarding protocol

• Devoid of procedural grounding, and therefore gratuitously menacing

• A retaliatory dispatch, sent in the midst of my civil claim against her employer

• A flagrant disregard of my disability accommodations, which prohibit surprise escalations or verbal manoeuvrings

• Delivered as if law were theatre, and I, its unwillingly cast antagonist

One does not need a law degree — though I have certainly acted as though I hold several — to see this was not safeguarding. It was retribution masquerading as duty.

---

⚖ Enumerated Breaches of Professional Standards

The following Professional Standards, issued by your own body, were treated by Ms Hornal as optional décor:

• 1.6 – Failing to treat me as an individual or to respect my legal and medical status

• 1.7 – Communicating in a manner that was neither appropriate, open, nor honest — unless one considers veiled threats a form of transparency

• 1.9 – Exploiting her statutory position to intimidate, not protect

• 2.2 – Collapsing the necessary boundary between professional role and personal vendetta

• 5.4 – Causing risk, not mitigating it; undermining confidence in social work as a domain of safeguarding rather than silencing

---

🎭 Context – Which She Cannot Claim to Have Missed

I am a disabled mother of four, managing complex PTSD and muscle tension dysphonia — conditions formally documented and acknowledged by Westminster multiple times. My written-only communication directive has been repeatedly submitted. Yet, Ms Hornal chose to escalate through litigation theatre without process, consultation, or lawful basis. Her actions are not merely improper — they are institutionally corrosive.

Police involvement (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) has been necessitated. That, in itself, is an indictment of this profession’s failure to police its own.

---

🗂 Documents Available for Your Review

• Exhibit A: Ms Hornal’s email (31 May 2025)

• Exhibit B: Communication directives and medical documentation

• Exhibit C: Metropolitan Police report, filed 2 June 2025

• Exhibit D: Civil litigation materials proving conflict of interest

---

🧾 Remedy Sought

I request, in the interests of public trust and professional integrity, that Social Work England initiate an immediate fitness to practise review. This is not a matter of “conflict resolution.” It is a matter of removing individuals who weaponise statutory authority for bureaucratic vengeance.

I trust that Social Work England wishes to be perceived not merely as a registration body, but as a guardian of ethical standards. Please do not let this one pass beneath the rug so many others have already vanished under.

Yours, exquisitely unimpressed,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---