⟡ 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.