“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Social Work England Complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Work England Complaint. Show all posts

I Didn’t Escalate. I Filed.


⟡ “She Called It Safeguarding. I Called Social Work England.” ⟡
A formal complaint submitted to Social Work England by Polly Chromatic, citing Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for professional misconduct, disability discrimination, and safeguarding harm. The complaint includes clinical documentation, statutory references, and an offer of Google Drive evidence. No emotion. Just evidence. No shouting. Just removal proceedings.

Filed: April 2024
Reference: SWANK/SWE/REG-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-24_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_DisabilityDiscrimination_MisconductSafeguarding.pdf
Complaint submitted to Social Work England detailing violations of the Equality Act 2010, SWE Code of Ethics, and Children Act 1989. Names Kirsty Hornal as the central actor in a pattern of procedural discrimination, medical harm, and educational interference. Offers full supporting evidence. Filed professionally. Read like a tribunal.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic submitted a formal referral to Social Work England. It included:

  • A clear clinical record:
    • Eosinophilic asthma
    • Muscle dysphonia
    • Psychiatric trauma from institutional harassment

  • A legal and ethical breakdown of what was violated:
    • SWE Standards 3.1, 3.4, 5.1, 6.2, and 6.4
    • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, and 27
    • Safeguarding interference with educational access

  • Factual examples:
    • Medical notes from Dr Rafiq and Dr Jose
    • Alleged misrepresentations to court about schooling
    • Misuse of CP procedures while ignoring parental boundaries

  • A statement of calm:

    “I would like to refer her for misconduct and institutional discrimination.”

No pleading.
No outrage.
Just the full record.
Ready for revocation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That disability and medical history were disclosed in writing

  • That the social worker proceeded in ways that escalated risk rather than reduced it

  • That no meaningful accommodations were made despite notice

  • That child harm occurred as a result of safeguarding intrusion

  • That a national regulator was formally activated with full evidence access

This isn’t a dispute.
It’s a professional indictment.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because silence isn’t compliance. Because safeguards are not safe when they’re used to escalate trauma. And because a regulator can only pretend not to see if no one sends the document. This one? They received it. With sources.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It’s your first formal regulatory body complaint against a named individual

  • It confirms that legal and medical documentation were merged

  • It shows you took the correct steps while the professionals took none

  • It becomes the reference point for every escalation from here

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Adjustment refusal
    • Section 26: Procedural harassment
    • Section 27: Retaliation for disability boundaries

  • Social Work England Code –
    • 3.1: Professional judgement compromised
    • 3.4: Poor communication / procedural opacity
    • 5.1: Breach of equality and inclusion
    • 6.2: Failure to maintain trust
    • 6.4: Harm to child and parent

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Section 17 & 47: Use of interventions that destabilised family support

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to call it care when it causes collapse. You don’t get to say you didn’t know when the doctor was copied in. And you don’t get to hide behind a lanyard when the regulator already has your name in a PDF.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a regulatory submission for professional misconduct, grounded in statute and supported by archive.

⟡ 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.
No comments:

Disability Isn’t Defiance — But That’s How She Treated It


⟡ “She Ignored a Psychiatric Report — Then Called Me a Risk” ⟡
A formal complaint to Social Work England documenting how Kirsty Hornal violated disability law, safeguarding standards, and basic decency — in that order.

Filed: 4 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-04_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
Regulatory complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal for disability-based retaliation, failure to accommodate written-only contact, and procedural abuse during the safeguarding process.

I. What Happened

After submitting medical documentation confirming the necessity of written-only communication, Polly Chromatic was subjected to a series of procedural threats and surveillance-style contact attempts by Kirsty Hornal — a registered social worker with Westminster Children’s Services.

This complaint, submitted to Social Work England, documents how Kirsty:

  • Refused to respect written-only communication despite clear clinical evidence

  • Mischaracterised the communication boundary as hostility or non-engagement

  • Escalated to PLO procedures immediately following lawful complaint activity

  • Disregarded a psychiatric report from Dr. Irfan Rafiq (dated 26 November 2024)

  • Directly contributed to the emotional harm of a disabled parent and her children

The complaint provides a factual timeline, legal context, and emotional impact — in language Kirsty could have understood, had she cared to read.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Disability accommodations were both documented and denied

  • PLO escalation occurred as retaliation, not protection

  • Statutory frameworks were used as a compliance weapon, not safeguarding

  • Repeated contact attempts constituted psychological harm

  • Kirsty Hornal was not acting in ignorance — she was acting in defiance

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because harm caused by incompetence is tragic — but harm caused by deliberate dismissal of medical need is professional misconduct. SWANK archived this complaint because it proves a single social worker, presented with the truth, chose to act against it.

SWANK filed this to:

  • Begin the process of professional accountability for disability-based safeguarding retaliation

  • Demonstrate the direct causal link between ignored adjustments and emotional harm

  • Establish legal precedent that procedural escalation following complaint is retaliatory conduct

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 27 (victimisation)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair hearing), Article 8 (private/family life)

  • Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding to pursue non-safeguarding objectives

  • Social Work England Standards – Failure to uphold dignity, respect, truthfulness, and lawfulness

  • UNCRPD & UNCRC – Denial of disabled parent support and harm to family stability

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a communication failure. It was a professional decision. A registered social worker received medical evidence and chose to interpret it as defiance. That is not safeguarding. That is retaliation — and now it’s regulation.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • Immediate SWE review of Kirsty Hornal’s professional fitness to practise

  • Investigation into her conduct across all CIN, PLO, and CP cases from 2023–2025

  • Temporary suspension from direct work with disabled families until resolved

⟡ 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.
No comments:

She Said He Wasn’t in Education. He Was — She Just Didn’t Like the Truth.


⟡ “She Lied About My Son’s Education — Because the Truth Would Have Protected Him” ⟡
A formal complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, documenting professional misconduct, disability retaliation, and the calculated misrepresentation of a child’s educational safety.

Filed: April 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-24_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_PLO_DisabilityBreach_EducationHarm.pdf
Complaint to Social Work England naming Kirsty Hornal for breaching professional standards and retaliating against a disabled parent through safeguarding escalation and factual distortion. Accuses Hornal of rewriting Regal’s educational history to justify state intrusion.

I. What Happened

In early 2024, Social Worker Kirsty Hornal — acting on behalf of Westminster Children’s Services — initiated statutory escalation under the Public Law Outline (PLO). Her justification? That the parent wasn’t cooperating, and that the child, Regal, wasn’t in education.

This complaint proves:

  • The parent had formally notified the local authority of lawful homeschooling

  • Regal was engaged in a legally compliant, medically protective, and trauma-informed educational structure

  • Hornal’s claim that “the child is not in education” was not an error — it was defamation, with consequences

Meanwhile, the parent had been repeatedly requesting written-only communication for medical reasons — a request ignored, mocked, and later recharacterised as non-compliance.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Kirsty Hornal misrepresented Regal’s education to manufacture statutory risk

  • That verbal-only engagement demands were medically contraindicated and legally unsupported

  • That retaliation followed regulatory complaint activity — not any real safeguarding concern

  • That the social worker’s actions inflicted measurable harm, emotional distress, and reputational injury

  • That multiple disability specialists (Dr. José, Dr. Rafiq) had confirmed the necessary adjustments

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because professional misconduct should not be protected by job title. Because defaming a child’s education in order to justify retaliation is not safeguarding — it’s narrative warfare.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

  • Begin the process of regulatory accountability under SWE

  • Refute Westminster’s claims at source — not just in court, but in code

  • Ensure the record reflects who harmed Regal — and who protected him

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Failure to adjust communication protocol
    • Section 27: Retaliation for protected activity
    • Section 149: Public duty breached through bias and narrative distortion

  • Social Work England Standards –
    • 3.1: Communicate openly and truthfully
    • 3.4: Respect diverse needs, including disability
    • 5.1: Manage records factually
    • 6.2 & 6.4: Respond to concerns without personal prejudice

  • Education Act 1996 – Misrepresentation of lawful elective home education

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

V. SWANK’s Position

You cannot fabricate a child’s absence from education to justify violating his rights. You cannot ignore a parent’s disability and then call her “non-compliant.” And you cannot weaponise your own misinformation and pretend it’s concern.

What Kirsty Hornal did is not just a regulatory breach — it is a factual lie with legal intent. And now, it’s archived.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • Full Social Work England review of Kirsty Hornal’s professional record

  • Immediate correction of Regal’s educational status in all WCC records

  • Regulatory suspension pending resolution of this complaint

⟡ 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.
No comments:

I Complied. You Retaliated. Let’s Correct the Record.


⟡ “My Health Is Not a Deferral Tactic. It’s a Statutory Right.” ⟡
A legally grounded letter correcting Westminster’s narrative: the issue is not non-engagement — the issue is their refusal to understand disability law.

Filed: 23 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-05
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-23_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_PLOResponseClarification.pdf
Formal written response from Polly Chromatic (Noelle Meline) to Kirsty Hornal, affirming legal compliance with PLO via written-only communication, supported by medical documentation and statutory protection.

I. What Happened

In this letter, dated 23 April 2025, the claimant formally responds to Westminster Children’s Services’ attempts to reframe her disability-mandated communication format as “non-cooperation.” The letter asserts that written replies — submitted with complete evidence bundles on 15 April — are not only lawful, but medically necessary under the Equality Act 2010.

Key points include:

  • Confirmation that the claimant has fully complied with the PLO process

  • Reiteration that all communication must be written-only due to clinically documented conditions

  • Legal justification for recording social worker visits

  • Clarification that ongoing threats of escalation are discriminatory and procedurally inappropriate

The letter also affirms the claimant’s willingness to continue engagement — provided it aligns with medical limitations, legal protections, and basic human decency.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Written communication is not a preference — it is a medically validated, legally protected adjustment

  • The parent has complied with all PLO requests through written submissions, including video, educational records, and legal declarations

  • Mischaracterising medical adjustments as defiance is a breach of both law and ethics

  • Threats to escalate proceedings in response to lawful communication amount to procedural harassment

  • The family’s wellbeing is being actively endangered by Westminster’s refusal to adapt

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not just a letter — it is a strategic evidentiary shield. SWANK filed it to document how Westminster officials, faced with a clear legal adjustment, chose instead to diminish, distort, and deny. When the authority in charge of safeguarding refuses to safeguard the process itself, the danger does not come from the parent — it comes from the institution.

SWANK archived this letter to:

  • Establish written proof of full legal engagement

  • Highlight the coercive misuse of safeguarding frameworks when disability is present

  • Prepare grounds for regulatory complaints to Social Work England, EHRC, and the Ombudsman

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (reasonable adjustments), Section 15 (discrimination arising from disability)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 6 (fair process), Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

  • Social Work England Professional Standards – Ignoring communication boundaries, escalating unfairly

  • Children Act 1989 – Emotional harm via procedural mismanagement

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Misrepresentation of lawful recording

V. SWANK’s Position

This letter stands as a model of procedural clarity, legal assertiveness, and trauma-informed resistance. Westminster Children’s Services is hereby placed on record: the law does not bend for bureaucratic convenience. A disabled parent invoking her rights is not evasive — she is simply not available for further abuse.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

  • A written acknowledgment from WCC that written communication is the official and lawful format

  • Ceasefire on threats of non-compliance

  • A public audit of internal decision-making tied to PLO and disability engagement

⟡ 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.
No comments: