⟡ “You Had Time to Ignore My Complaints. Now You Have 30 Days to Disclose Them.” ⟡
Formal Subject Access Request to Social Work England demanding all records related to complaints against Kirsty Hornal
Filed: 8 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/SAR-HORNAL-COMPLAINT-RECORDS
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-08_SWANK_SARRequest_SWE_HornalComplaintsAndDeliberations.pdf
Subject Access Request demanding full disclosure of Social Work England’s records concerning complaints filed by Polly Chromatic against Kirsty Hornal
I. What Happened
On 8 April 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to Social Work England (SWE)under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The request demands:
All internal documents, assessments, and decisions relating to complaints filed against Kirsty Hornal
All emails or correspondence where Polly is named or referenced
Full access to decision-making rationale, risk assessments, and refusal criteria
Disclosure of the mechanisms used to determine why her complaints were not escalated
The SAR was submitted following SWE’s ongoing failure to investigate well-documented professional misconduct, and serves as a pre-litigation evidence sweep for both Judicial Review and regulator complaint escalation.
II. What the Request Establishes
Regulatory opacity: SWE failed to provide procedural clarity regarding why Hornal’s misconduct was never investigated
Documentation disparity: The archive is full — but SWE’s files have been withheld
Data rights: Legal entitlement to know how the regulator discussed, dismissed, or delayed critical safeguarding concerns
Institutional contradiction: Transparency is policy — except when the social worker is protected
Power inversion: This SAR flips the dynamic — from subject to sovereign
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when regulators pretend not to see, you force them to read.
Because SWE can’t claim “insufficient grounds” while refusing to show their own grounds.
Because if they had time to ignore a year’s worth of documentation, they now have 30 days to account for that silence — in writing.
This SAR is not just an inquiry. It’s a jurisdictional demand.
And the archive will not wait politely.
IV. Violations (If Not Fulfilled)
UK GDPR, Articles 12 & 15 – right to access personal data and obtain confirmation of processing
Data Protection Act 2018, Sections 45–54 – noncompliance with subject access obligations
Equality Act 2010, if refusal linked to disability status or complaint origin
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – right to informational privacy and family protection
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that Social Work England gets to say “no case to answer” without showing what was asked.
We do not accept that silence is transparency.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation can be documented, and still dismissed, without scrutiny.
This is a records request.
It is also a countdown.
Day one has begun.
⟡ 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.