⟡ Misconduct Referral: Kirsty Hornal – Social Work England Case PT-10633 ⟡
Chromatic v. The Adjustment They Chose to Misread [2025] SWANK 31 — “They called it non-engagement. We called it written.”
Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PT10633-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_Social_Work_England_PT10633_Kirsty_Hornal.pdf
Misconduct referral to SWE for disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding by WCC social worker Kirsty Hornal.
I. What Happened
On 2 July 2025, Polly Chromatic, acting as director of SWANK London Ltd., received formal correspondence from Social Work England (SWE) confirming that her concerns regarding social worker Kirsty Hornal had been triaged and logged under Case Reference PT-10633. The concerns included:
Failure to provide reasonable adjustments (written-only communication) during a Child Protection Conference
Misrepresentation of said adjustment as “non-engagement”
Escalation of safeguarding procedures directly following formal complaints and video-documented visits
Disregard of medical evidence affirming the need for written-only interaction
SWE requested further information to determine whether an investigation will be opened into Hornal’s fitness to practise.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Written communication was requested on medical grounds — and rebranded as defiance.
A procedural accommodation was turned into a justification for escalation.
Formal complaints triggered retaliatory safeguarding referrals — a known institutional pattern.
A disabled parent was set up to “fail” an engagement test designed to ignore her exemption.
Hornal acted not as a safeguarding professional, but as a policy custodian in crisis management mode.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because “non-engagement” is now a euphemism for non-compliance with discrimination.
Because the system prefers silence over access, and punishment over accommodation.
Because this wasn’t about a child. It was about narrative control.
Because every safeguarding referral made after a complaint is a form of reputational retaliation — and SWANK names it.
Because the question isn’t whether Hornal “followed protocol” — it’s whether protocol now includes disability sabotage.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010, §§20 & 21 – Failure to make, and then penalise, reasonable adjustments
Children Act 1989, §22 – Failure to safeguard and promote welfare of the child through fair process
Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – Interference with family life via discriminatory conduct
Social Work England Professional Standards – 1.6, 3.2, 5.1 – Respect for rights, evidence-based decisions, and harm prevention
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t social work. It was professional defamation by procedural fiction.
We do not accept escalation built from misinterpretation.
We do not accept safeguarding used as institutional retribution.
We do not accept practitioners who perform protocol while punishing parents for surviving.
Hornal did not act alone — but she acted formally. That is enough.
SWANK will file. SWE will decide. And the archive will remain open.
⟡ 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.