“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 Westminster complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westminster complaint. Show all posts

Ten Years of Intrusion. One Formal Email.


⟡ SWANK Psychological Harm Ledger ⟡

“We Told You There Were No Concerns. You Called That Evasion.”
Filed: 18 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CHILD-INTRUSION-DISABILITY
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-18_SWANK_Westminster_Complaint_TraumatisingInvestigations_ChildWelfareIntrusion_DisabilityImpact.pdf

I. There Were No Concerns. But You Made an Investigation Anyway.

This formal complaint, submitted to Westminster City Council on 18 October 2024, documents the psychological violence inflicted through unlawful, sustained, and medically harmful safeguarding inquiries — with no statutory trigger, no disclosed risk, and no lawful basis.

The children were well.
The parent was protective.
The system was relentless.

When truth didn’t justify escalation, they substituted intrusion.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Repeated child welfare investigations with no credible allegations

  • Complete absence of statutory thresholds or safeguarding risk

  • Emotional and psychological harm caused by:

    • Prolonged scrutiny

    • Communication method breaches

    • Ongoing refusal to respect written-only adjustments

  • Disability exacerbation and fear of retaliation as lasting effects

  • Westminster’s refusal to acknowledge:

    • The family’s protected rights

    • The legal sufficiency of prior disclosures

    • The harmful cumulative impact of being investigated for parenting rather than supported for disability

This wasn’t child protection.

It was state paranoia disguised as protocol.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you report illness, they demand performance.
Because when you request written communication, they send another home visit.
Because when you show no signs of risk, they demand signs of submission.

We filed this because:

  • There was no risk

  • There was no concern

  • There was no justification

  • And yet, there was an investigation

Let the record show:

  • The family did not fail

  • The system did not pause

  • The breach was not accidental

  • And the complaint — is now in the archive

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept bureaucratic obsession as care.
We do not permit institutional suspicion to masquerade as safety.
We do not let councils punish silence and dignity as though they were danger.

Let the record show:

The request was lawful.
The children were safe.
The harm was caused by intrusion.
And the response — is now public.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was unlicensed curiosity with institutional teeth.

⟡ 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:

Retaliation Noted. Ignored at Their Own Risk.


⟡ SWANK Council Filing ⟡

“We Warned Westminster. They Escalated Anyway.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/INT-COMPLAINT/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_WestminsterComplaint_KirstyHornal_SafeguardingThreat_DisabilityViolation.pdf

I. The Formal Warning They Pretended Not to Receive

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal written complaint to Westminster City Council regarding the conduct of Kirsty Hornal, following her now-infamous email dated 31 May 2025.

The message — threatening court action without meeting, assessment, or lawful basis — arrived:

  • In the midst of live litigation

  • In clear breach of disability adjustments

  • And with all the tonal subtlety of a bureaucratic threat wearing child protection drag

This internal complaint was not performative.
It was a final chance to behave.

They didn’t.

II. What They Were Told — and What They Ignored

The complaint explicitly laid out the following:

  • That written-only contact had been formally acknowledged by Westminster

  • That Sections 20, 26, and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 had been breached

  • That the act constituted harassment and victimisation under colour of law

  • That a police report (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) had already been filed

  • That their employee’s conduct occurred during a live civil claim already on record

This was not a miscommunication.
This was procedural cruelty hidden in Outlook formatting.

III. Evidence Submitted

The complaint included:

  • Exhibit A – The coercive email from Ms. Hornal (31 May 2025)

  • Exhibit B – A formal threat summary, with legal framing

  • Exhibit C – The official Metropolitan Police Report

Each exhibit was attached not for argument, but for legal forewarning — a fact Westminster is now institutionally bound to.

IV. Relief Sought

The requested reliefs were not extravagant. They were basic adherence to civilised conduct:

  1. Acknowledge the complaint

  2. Confirm no proceedings are underway

  3. Ensure written-only contact moving forward

  4. Investigate the use of safeguarding as intimidation

To ignore these is not incompetence. It is tactical negligence.

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse politeness with compliance.
We filed this complaint to complete the evidentiary chain — the proof that Westminster was given notice, documentation, and a lawful chance to remedy.

They did not.

That decision now lives in the archive, alongside the email, the police report, the SWE referral, and the Ombudsman complaint.

This isn’t just a council failing.
This is what administrative retaliation looks like on record.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions