⟡ The Day I Reported a Social Worker for Coercive Control ⟡
“She said it was voluntary — right before she escalated it to court.”
Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/POLICE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_CoerciveControlNegligence.pdf
Metropolitan Police report submitted against social worker Kirsty Hornal citing coercive control, medical negligence, and record falsification.
I. What Happened
On 16 April 2025, a formal police report was submitted by a disabled parent against Kirsty Hornal, a senior social worker at Westminster Children’s Services.
The report details a pattern of:
Coercive control
Procedural retaliation following complaints
Forced verbal interaction despite known respiratory disability
Misuse and falsification of records to justify unnecessary safeguarding escalation
Negligent exposure to harm during periods of illness, including after a sewer gas leak
The time frame covers 1 May 2024 to 16 April 2025 — a full year of systemic disregard, culminating in an unlawful PLO threat delivered shortly after this complaint was made.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That Kirsty Hornal used her position to retaliate against a parent who asserted legal boundaries
That medical evidence was routinely dismissed or used manipulatively
That home visits were conducted during illness, despite being medically harmful
That procedural steps were taken after a police report — not before
That Westminster leveraged escalation to neutralise legal exposure, not to protect children
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a social worker is reported to police, and the only institutional response is escalation, we are no longer dealing with child protection — we are documenting institutional retaliation.
This report was filed not because of a single action, but because of an organised pattern:
Ignoring medical limitations
Misrepresenting facts in records
Exerting pressure while claiming “voluntariness”
Retaliating after a complaint
Escalating to PLO after a police report
This is not frontline error.
This is administrative coercion in slow motion.
IV. Violations
Serious Misconduct – Police Referral (Single Online Home)
Submitted under risk to life, health, and libertyEquality Act 2010 – Section 20
Repeated breach of reasonable adjustments (respiratory disability)Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, 14
Discrimination, interference with private life, denial of justiceChildren Act 1989 / 2004
Safeguarding law used in bad faith after retaliationProtection from Harassment Act 1997
Pattern of unwanted contact after lawful refusal
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not an oversight.
This was retaliation wrapped in a visit.
This was not safeguarding.
This was state coercion weaponised against disability.
When complaints are followed by PLO letters —
When disability is met with surveillance —
When records are edited but reality is not —
We document. You escalate.
We archive. You deny.
We file. And now, we publish.
⟡ 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.