“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label SWE evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWE evidence. Show all posts

You Can’t Call It Safeguarding If the Documents Are Retaliatory.


⟡ The Threat Was Sent by Email. The Evidence Was Sent to the Regulator. ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-ATTACHMENTS
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_Attachments_KirstyHornal_EvidenceBundle_SafeguardingThreats_DisabilityBreach.pdf

I. You Can’t Call It Safeguarding If the Documents Are Retaliatory.

This evidentiary bundle, submitted to Social Work England, includes:

  • The 31 May 2025 “Supervision Order” threat email, issued outside lawful process

  • Prior written-only adjustment documentation, ignored in entirety

  • Evidence of no statutory trigger, no multi-agency consultation, and no lawful safeguarding basis

  • Procedural inconsistencies consistent with post-complaint retaliation

This wasn’t care.
It was PDF-backed coercion — and now it’s regulator-reviewed.

II. What She Attached, What She Omitted

Kirsty Hornal:

  • Referenced “concerns” with no timeline, no evidence, and no consultation

  • Failed to cite any procedural threshold or legal duty

  • Sent attachments as intimidation, not information

  • Used child welfare language to discipline a mother for filing complaints

What she forgot to redact, we remembered to file.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because threatening a supervision order in retaliation for lawful criticism is not safeguarding — it’s procedural warfare.
Because if one email can risk four children’s futures, then one file can end a career.
Because when documents become weapons, we catalogue every blade.

Let the record show:

  • The email was real

  • The threat was unlawful

  • The harm was foreseeable

  • And SWANK — filed the entire evidence set with institutional precision

This isn’t a she-said scenario.
It’s a she-sent, we-filed, they-review sequence in timestamped order.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept threats disguised as support.
We do not allow safeguarding to be used as reputational defence.
We do not redact retaliation when it arrives with attachments.

Let the record show:

They sent a threat.
We sent the archive.
They framed it as care.
And SWANK — called it by its legal name.

This isn’t a misunderstanding.
It’s evidence of misconduct — and we filed it while the ink was still warm.



No comments:

Documented Obsessions