“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 coercive email. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coercive email. Show all posts

The Council Sent a Threat. The Police Received the Evidence.


⟡ SWANK Law Enforcement Submission Archive – Metropolitan Police ⟡
“The Email Was Retaliatory. The Statement Was Submitted. The Evidence Is Now a Police Record.”
Filed: 1 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/KIRSTY-HORNAL-COERCIVE-SUBMISSION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-01_SWANK_MetPolice_Submission_KirstyHornal_CoerciveEmail_AttachedEvidence.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

I. When Email Escalates Into Evidence

This document records the formal submission to the Metropolitan Police of a supplemental harassment statement concerning Kirsty Hornal, safeguarding officer for Westminster City Council.

Included:

  • A witness statement documenting her coercive and retaliatory communication

  • The original email, attached in full

  • A reiterated disability adjustment limiting contact to written-only formats

  • A direct request that the case record be updated, logged, and retained

This wasn’t a follow-up.
It was a procedural conversion — from misconduct to misconduct report, from council oversight to state scrutiny.

II. What the Submission Establishes

  • That the safeguarding email was sent with:

    • Knowledge of a medical communication adjustment

    • No safeguarding trigger or threshold cited

    • Language alluding to court escalation without cause

  • That the parent responded:

    • In writing, with evidence

    • Within lawful boundaries

    • Through the correct policing channel — not just complaint, but submission

Let the record show:
The email was inappropriate.
The response was lawful.
And now — it’s logged in a jurisdiction the Council can’t redact.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because councils may dismiss complaints — but police records aren’t so easily ignored.
Because disability boundaries breached by state actors must be tracked in both civil and criminal systems.
Because safeguarding power must not be used as a threat, and when it is — the email becomes a PDF with consequences.

We filed this because:

  • Kirsty Hornal used institutional email to pressure a disabled parent

  • The act violated law, policy, and decency

  • And the parent didn’t flinch — she submitted it to the police

Let the record show:

The words were logged.
The harms were named.
The archive is live.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept threats masked as safeguarding.
We do not accept breaches of disability law as mere communication choices.
We do not accept silence when state actors act unlawfully.

Let the record show:

The case was updated.
The officer was named.
And SWANK — gave the evidence structure, jurisdiction, and a file path.

This wasn’t an escalation.
It was the legal system being politely informed that the evidence has arrived.


No comments:

When “Safeguarding” Arrives as a Threat


⟡ SWANK Police Escalation Archive – WCC ⟡
“This Wasn’t an Email. It Was Coercion, and I Reported It to the Police.”
Filed: 1 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/KIRSTY-HORNAL-COERCIVE-EMAIL-STATEMENT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-01_SWANK_WCC_KirstyHornal_CoerciveEmail_SupplementalStatement_MetPolice.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic

I. From Professional Disagreement to Police Record

This supplemental witness statement was submitted to the Metropolitan Police following a retaliatory and coercive email sent by Kirsty Hornal, acting in her capacity as a safeguarding officer for Westminster Children’s Services.

At issue:

  • A communication sent in knowing violation of a formal written-only disability adjustment

  • A deliberate reference to a supervision order application with no legal threshold met

  • A strategic tone: not protective, but intimidating — designed to exert control

This wasn’t support.
It was a power play, sent in writing —
and now, formally recorded as harassment.

II. What the Statement Establishes

  • That the parent had:

    • A documented diagnosis of PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma

    • A clearly communicated communication adjustment

    • Prior safeguarding complaints already filed

  • That the officer:

    • Ignored those adjustments

    • Sent an escalation threat via email

    • Operated outside protocol, outside process, and inside power

This isn’t “child welfare.”
It’s a civilian being pressured by government email — during a known medical vulnerability.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because disability adjustments are not optional.
Because safeguarding threats issued without legal basis are institutional coercion.
Because when the state weaponises email tone — we weaponise clarity.

We filed this because:

  • This wasn’t a safeguarding notice — it was a warning dressed as a “check-in”

  • This wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was deliberate intrusion into a controlled boundary

  • The person in power had options — and chose the one with legal exposure

Let the record show:

The email was received.
The adjustment was ignored.
The officer was named.
And the report — went to the police.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept professional roles as shields for misconduct.
We do not accept threats buried in pleasantries.
We do not accept that a safeguarding officer may breach medical law because of discomfort with dissent.

Let the record show:

The report was filed.
The statement was signed.
The archive is permanent.

This wasn’t an overreaction.
It was the minimum required response to digital coercion.

⟡ 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