✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-WCC-Supervision-Threat
Filed Under: Retaliation by Email, Misuse of Procedure, Digital Coercion Series
Re: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services
Subject Line: “Letter of Intent to Initiate Proceedings”
Date & Time of Offence: 29 May 2025, 11:14 BST
🎭 Threat Theatre, Act I: “Support and Assessment”
At precisely 11:14 on the morning of 29 May 2025, Ms Kirsty Hornal — Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services and repeat feature in our anthology of institutional misconduct — took it upon herself to author an electronic ultimatum, cunningly disguised as cooperative liaison.
Under the genteel veneer of “support and assessment,” Ms Hornal announced the Council’s alleged intention to pursue a Supervision Order over four named children: Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — an invocation so absurdly theatrical it could only be sincere in its threat.
The pretext? A letter “outlining concerns.”
The timing? Remarkably aligned with SWANK’s legal proceedings.
The delivery? Pastel and polite, but seething with bureaucratic menace.
🩺 Disability? What Disability.
A Written Communication Policy is, and has long been, in place.
It is formal, enforceable, and medically mandated.
Its terms? No unsolicited contact, no verbal engagements, no encrypted ambushes.
Its breach? A statutory violation.
Ms Hornal was well aware of this.
She emailed regardless.
What Westminster refers to as safeguarding now appears indistinguishable from systematic disregard for disabled protections.
📚 Interpretive Notes for the Archive – The Anatomy of a Threat
The letter’s declaration of legal intent is procedurally anomalous, devoid of risk foundation, and unaccompanied by lawful process.
The gratuitous naming of children — absent threshold or tribunal — functions as emotional leverage, not protection.
The phrase “we will be seeking a supervision order” is delivered without basis, evidence, or necessity.
The letter’s declaration of legal intent is procedurally anomalous, devoid of risk foundation, and unaccompanied by lawful process.
The gratuitous naming of children — absent threshold or tribunal — functions as emotional leverage, not protection.
The phrase “we will be seeking a supervision order” is delivered without basis, evidence, or necessity.
This is not safeguarding.
This is email as intimidation.
This is casework as vendetta, cloaked in the sanitised dialect of child protection bureaucracy.
Let the record show: safeguarding has become the state’s soft weapon, and email, its preferred projectile.
🖋 Filed By:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy