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

Showing posts with label education harm. Show all posts

She Said He Wasn’t in Education. He Was — She Just Didn’t Like the Truth.

⟡ “She Lied About My Son’s Education — Because the Truth Would Have Protected Him” ⟡
A formal complaint to Social Work England against Kirsty Hornal, documenting professional misconduct, disability retaliation, and the calculated misrepresentation of a child’s educational safety.

Filed: April 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/SWE-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-04-24_SWANK_Complaint_SWE_KirstyHornal_PLO_DisabilityBreach_EducationHarm.pdf
Complaint to Social Work England naming Kirsty Hornal for breaching professional standards and retaliating against a disabled parent through safeguarding escalation and factual distortion. Accuses Hornal of rewriting Regal’s educational history to justify state intrusion.

I. What Happened

In early 2024, Social Worker Kirsty Hornal — acting on behalf of Westminster Children’s Services — initiated statutory escalation under the Public Law Outline (PLO). Her justification? That the parent wasn’t cooperating, and that the child, Regal, wasn’t in education.

This complaint proves:

The parent had formally notified the local authority of lawful homeschooling
Regal was engaged in a legally compliant, medically protective, and trauma-informed educational structure
Hornal’s claim that “the child is not in education” was not an error — it was defamation, with consequences

Meanwhile, the parent had been repeatedly requesting written-only communication for medical reasons — a request ignored, mocked, and later recharacterised as non-compliance.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That Kirsty Hornal misrepresented Regal’s education to manufacture statutory risk
That verbal-only engagement demands were medically contraindicated and legally unsupported
That retaliation followed regulatory complaint activity — not any real safeguarding concern
That the social worker’s actions inflicted measurable harm, emotional distress, and reputational injury
That multiple disability specialists (Dr. José, Dr. Rafiq) had confirmed the necessary adjustments

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because professional misconduct should not be protected by job title. Because defaming a child’s education in order to justify retaliation is not safeguarding — it’s narrative warfare.

SWANK archived this complaint to:

Begin the process of regulatory accountability under SWE
Refute Westminster’s claims at source — not just in court, but in code
Ensure the record reflects who harmed Regal — and who protected him

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 –
• Section 20: Failure to adjust communication protocol
• Section 27: Retaliation for protected activity
• Section 149: Public duty breached through bias and narrative distortion
Social Work England Standards –
• 3.1: Communicate openly and truthfully
• 3.4: Respect diverse needs, including disability
• 5.1: Manage records factually
• 6.2 & 6.4: Respond to concerns without personal prejudice
Education Act 1996 – Misrepresentation of lawful elective home education
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 14 (discrimination)

V. SWANK’s Position

You cannot fabricate a child’s absence from education to justify violating his rights. You cannot ignore a parent’s disability and then call her “non-compliant.” And you cannot weaponise your own misinformation and pretend it’s concern.

What Kirsty Hornal did is not just a regulatory breach — it is a factual lie with legal intent. And now, it’s archived.

SWANK London Ltd. demands:

Full Social Work England review of Kirsty Hornal’s professional record
Immediate correction of Regal’s educational status in all WCC records
Regulatory suspension pending resolution of this complaint

⟡ 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.

Governor Complaint Filed: Because Silence Is Not Resolution.

⟡ SWANK Institutional Oversight Archive ⟡

“The Bruise They Investigated. The Harm They Ignored.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GOVERNOR/DRAYTON-PARK/COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_GovernorComplaint_DraytonPark_SafeguardingMisuse_DisabilityHarm_Simlett.pdf

I. The Mark on the Child Was Temporary. The Institutional Harm Wasn’t.

This formal complaint was submitted to the Board of Governors at Drayton Park Primary School in May 2025. It concerns not just how the school responded to a minor bruise, but how that bruise was weaponised into a multi-agency safeguarding escalation against a disabled parent — with no lawful threshold and no procedural justification.

They said they were protecting the child.

What they were protecting was their paperwork.

II. What the Complaint Documents

That the school:
- Reported a bruise with no contextual follow-up
- Bypassed standard communication protocols
- Ignored written-only adjustments in place for disability
That the referral:
- Was medically and procedurally unjustified
- Ignored previous trauma to the family from safeguarding weaponisation
- Led to cascading retaliation through social services, even as the child remained safe, well, and articulate
That Drayton Park failed to:
- Assess the context of the mark
- Communicate neutrally with the parent
- Prevent known systemic harm from being re-triggered by an unnecessary referral

This wasn’t a safeguarding response.

It was an escalation reflex dressed in institutional caution.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a governor board is not a rubber stamp.
Because a parent’s disability is not a basis for suspicion.
Because bruises heal — but paper trails built on bias don’t disappear.

We filed this because:

The response was disproportionate
The process was opaque
The harm — psychological, procedural, and reputational — was real
And no one within the school stopped to ask: What does this referral cost a disabled family already under surveillance?

Let the record show:

The child was safe
The harm was institutional
The escalation was avoidable
And the complaint — is now public, precise, and archived

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not tolerate referrals made to protect liability rather than children.
We do not accept that marks on a body override respect for adjustments already on file.
We do not permit schools to act as handmaidens to systemic retaliation.