🦯 Retaliation & Procedural Escalation Timeline

A Stylised Chronology of Disability Discrimination, Retaliatory Safeguarding, and State-Endorsed Harassment

By: Polly Chromatic

This is not a record of mere bureaucratic malfunction. It is a silk-gloved indictment. A forensic reconstruction of how public authorities — emboldened by their own impunity — sought to punish a disabled woman for insisting on written standards.

Westminster Children’s Services. RBKC. The NHS.
Each implicated. Each archived.

Every entry below is backed by police reports, clinical documentation, legal submissions, and the imperturbable clarity of written truth.

What follows is a timeline — not of time, but of intent.

🕰 June – October 2023 — Toxic Foundations

Sewer gas poisoning in the Claimant’s flat, documented yet dismissed. Environmental Health (RBKC) ignored repeated warnings. Not a single urgent inspection until February 2024 — eight months too late.
October 2023: Forced hotel relocation — mother and four children — at their own expense. Landlord refused repairs, sold the flat from under them.
While in hotel: Personal belongings stolen. Not one authority intervened.

🕰 November 2023 — Medical Distress, Misread

First emergency visit to St Thomas’ Hospital: respiratory collapse. No toxicology. No urgency. A clinical shrug.

🕰 December 2023 — The Cat Dies First

The family cat dies in the poisoned flat. Still, no environmental response from RBKC. The death was logged — as were their silences.

🕰 January 2024 — Second Hospital Visit

Second A&E admission: identical symptoms, identical neglect. Instead of investigating toxins, the NHS escalates to social services.

🕰 Nov 2023 – Feb 2025 — A&E Asylum

Multiple emergency visits for the Claimant and her children — all stemming from sewer gas exposure and infections made worse by the trauma of social work intrusion. Not a home. Not a system. A trigger loop in policy drag.

🕰 February 2024 — The Fabrication Begins

Physical assault attempt at Virgin Active Gym (Notting Hill): A Black male customer attempted to punch the Claimant in the face. Rather than protect the victim, Virgin Active banned the Claimant. A police report was filed. No action was taken.
Safeguarding referrals from St Thomas’ and Chelsea & Westminster Hospitals: red eyes interpreted as "possible intoxication."
No tests. No consent.
Environmental data provided. Ignored. The result: escalation by fiction.
RBKC Child Protection Plan imposed because the Claimant could not speak.
Eosinophilic asthma, PTSD, and muscle tension dysphonia — all documented, all dismissed.

🕰 October 2024 — Paper Downgrade, Not Relief

Downgraded to Child in Need, not because the harm ended, but because the panic attacks began. The abuse of process merely changed outfits.

🗓 15 February 2025 — First Police Strike

Report BCA-10622-25-0101-IR filed against Kirsty Hornal:
✓ Coercion
✓ Discrimination
✓ Adjustment refusal

🗓 7 March 2025 — The Claim Hits Court

N1 Civil Claim filed. The accusations:
✓ Harassment
✓ Disability Discrimination
✓ Weaponised safeguarding

🗓 14 April 2025 — Retaliation Rehearsed

Westminster issues PLO letter. No new evidence. No new assessment. Pure retaliation — days after legal filings.

🗓 15 April 2025 — Police Again

Report BCA-25130-25-0101-IR filed:
✓ Escalation
✓ Harassment
✓ Breach of adjustments

🗓 16 April 2025 — Repeat Offender: Hornal

Report BCA-25249-25-0101-IR:
✓ Coercive control
✓ Data misuse
✓ Health endangerment

🗓 18 April 2025 — Flag Raised

Formal notification to safeguarding and legal bodies. Pattern cited. Silence returned.

🗓 21 April 2025 — The Medical Response

Asthma clarified. Written-only needs reaffirmed. Misrepresentation denounced.

🗓 22 April 2025 — Legal Line Drawn

Written-only demand formalised. Equality Act cited.

🗓 24 April 2025 — Evidence Supplied (Again)

PLO agenda. Medicals. Legal. Delivered.

🗓 17 May 2025 — Dual Filing Day

N16A Injunction
N461 Judicial Review
The fight, formalised.

🗓 21 May 2025 — Encrypted Retaliation

Police Report ROC-10237-25-0101-IR:
✓ Sam Brown
✓ Unlawful contact
✓ Adjustment breach

🗓 22 May 2025 — Final Refusal

Final written response. CIN visit declined. Accompanied by:
✓ Police reports
✓ Psychiatric reports
✓ Legal claims
All future contact (non-written) to be treated as unlawful harassment.

🗓 29 May 2025 — The Letter of Intent

Kirsty Hornal’s final act of theatre:
- 11:14am — Email threat
- 11:41am — Follow-up urging legal advice
Documents included:
✓ Solicitor list
✓ Duplicate PLO
✓ So-called "Letter of Intent"

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
A line more befitting a bailiff than a children's service.

📟 Conclusion

This is not a “safeguarding concern.” It is a documented campaign of retaliatory escalation, carried out beneath the pastel pretence of procedure.

No risk. No injury. No protection.
Only a refusal — to let a disabled mother live, speak, and raise her children without interference.

⟡ 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.

🎩 An Administrative Ballet of Incompetence: Westminster's Masterclass in Disability Discrimination

🕰 Date: 10 March 2025

📍 To:
Complaints Department
Westminster Children’s Services
4 Frampton Street
London, NW8 8LF

📜 Subject: Formal Complaint under the Equality Act 2010 – Disability Discrimination, Procedural Evasion, and Retaliatory Interference Masquerading as Care

Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with the sort of exhausted eloquence only bureaucracy can inspire that I submit this formal complaint, regarding the conduct of Westminster Children’s Services — a department whose disregard for legal obligation, clinical reality, and basic human courtesy has necessitated yet another act of administrative self-advocacy on my part.

I. The Curious Absence of Reasonable Adjustments

Under the Equality Act 2010, I am entitled — not optionally, not aspirationally, but legally — to reasonable adjustments for my documented disabilities: eosinophilic asthma, muscle tension dysphonia, and severe panic disorder.

Despite the clarity of this information — and my provision of medical evidence — Westminster staff responded not with accommodation, but with institutional amnesia.

Instead of implementing even the most rudimentary adjustment, they elected to:

Insist upon verbal interactions, as though my documented medical history were an administrative inconvenience;
Dismiss alternatives such as written correspondence or advocacy support;
Exacerbate my symptoms through repeated, unaccommodated interactions.

In short: they demonstrated not mere ignorance of the law, but the aesthetic of compliance without the substance.

II. Retaliation, Coercion, and the Theatre of Concern

In response to my lawful and reasonable request, Westminster chose escalation over introspection. The consequences included:

Invasive and unnecessary home visits, conducted with all the grace of a startled bureaucrat;
Intimidating tactics, aimed not at supporting but at forcing verbal compliance;
Emotional destabilisation of my children, rendered involuntary participants in this farce;
The construction of misleading reports, spun with the narrative finesse of a low-budget political pamphlet.

This is not safeguarding. This is harassment, costumed as care.

III. Breaches of the Equality Act 2010 (In Case Anyone Still Reads It)

Westminster Children’s Services has violated both the spirit and letter of:

Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments;
Section 29 – Harassment and victimisation based on disability.

I did not request favours. I requested — and was entitled to — compliance with the law.

What I received instead was decorative concern and procedural hostility.

IV. Remedies Sought (Though Frankly, They Should Be Self-Evident)

I formally request:

A written acknowledgement of your department’s failure to provide reasonable adjustments;
An immediate cessation of retaliatory visits and coercive practices;
A written apology, as a matter of legal and ethical formality;
The implementation of mandatory disability competence training — preferably conducted by someone who has read both the Equality Act and a book on basic decency.

V. Next Steps (Or: How This Will Escalate If You Continue to Prevaricate)

Should Westminster decline to remedy this situation, I shall escalate the matter to:

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman;
The Equality and Human Rights Commission;
My legal representative, for the pursuit of formal litigation.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and outline your proposed remedial action — if, indeed, such an instinct still exists within your walls.

Yours, with the courtesy your department so lavishly withholds,

Polly

SWANK Dispatches: Because one must maintain standards — even whilst navigating the crumbling corridors of procedural farce.

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Anatomy of Institutional Malice: A Forensic Record of Procedural Retaliation