⟡ “She Called It Positivity. I Called My Lawyer.” ⟡
A formally toned email from Polly Chromatic to Westminster safeguarding officer Kirsty Hornal, copied to Dr Philip Reid, the police, and solicitor Simon O’Meara — responding to years of retaliatory interference with NHS care and requesting lawful telecom adjustments. The tone: precise. The damage: permanent. The archive: live.
Filed: 12 April 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS-SOL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-12_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_StThomasRetaliation_TelecomDisabilityRequest_SafeguardingInterference.pdf
Email correcting social worker misrepresentation, confirming systemic harm at St Thomas’, and requesting formal disability support for remote communications. Includes CCs to NHS consultant, police officers, and Blackfords LLP solicitor. The record is established. The story is no longer theirs to write.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic replied to a safeguarding update from Kirsty Hornal with the following:
Reframed Kirsty’s “positivity” as institutional gaslighting
Confirmed that NHS support was repeatedly denied due to safeguarding intrusion
Requested telecoms-based support due to verbal strain and medical risk
Copied:
Dr Philip Reid (consultant pulmonologist)
Metropolitan Police
Simon O’Meara, solicitor at Blackfords LLP
Included her formal SWANK disability clause:
“I will reply to all emails within one week. Please do not expect verbal contact.”
She didn’t argue. She didn’t explain.
She documented, corrected, and escalated.
II. What the Email Establishes
That NHS services were disrupted because of safeguarding activity
That the social worker’s tone was inappropriate given the harm caused
That verbal disability was not respected, despite repeated clarification
That legal counsel was now actively observing agency behaviour
That the parent set lawful boundaries while staying procedurally correct
This is not disengagement. This is controlled containment.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because “positive” is what they call it when they ignore the damage they caused. Because when you’ve had medical care denied, surveillance increased, and verbal boundaries ignored, the only reasonable thing left to do is archive the performance and CC your legal team.
SWANK archived this because:
It’s a turning point from protest to jurisdictional procedure
It confirms that institutional harm was witnessed, corrected, and recorded
It establishes that safeguarding rhetoric was rejected with legal formality
It shows that from this point on, all responses were strategically monitored
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Adjustment request ignored
• Section 27: Safeguarding caused direct medical and emotional retaliationHuman Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Disruption of medical care and family life
• Article 14: Discriminatory interference masked as child protectionChildren Act 1989 –
• Intervention harmed family stability, not preserved itSocial Work England Ethics –
• Euphemistic framing used to erase measurable harm
• No apology or procedural acknowledgement of consequences
V. SWANK’s Position
You don’t get to injure someone and then call their response “negative energy.” You don’t get to withhold healthcare and pretend it’s optimism. And you definitely don’t get to write over someone’s medical reality with a chirpy paragraph and no cc’s.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a formal notification of procedural abuse, legal witness entry, and disability record — acknowledged by law, witnessed by the 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.