“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 human rights breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights breach. Show all posts

This Is the Document They’ll Pretend They Never Received.


⟡ “I Called the Police. I Named the Social Worker. I Filed It as a Crime.” ⟡
A formal police report submitted against Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services for coercive behaviour, ableist harassment, and the weaponisation of safeguarding against a disabled parent. Not safeguarding. Not support. Now officially misconduct — logged as criminal.

Filed: 15 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/KH-CRIM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-15_SWANK_Report_MetPolice_KirstyHornal_DisabilityAbuse_CoerciveConduct.pdf
A police complaint submitted to the Metropolitan Police under reference number BCA-10622-25-0101-IR, documenting coercion, disability discrimination, and prolonged abuse of power by Westminster officer Kirsty Hornal. Criminal complaint lodged. Support requested. Evidence confirmed.

I. What Happened

On 15 February 2025, Polly Chromatic stopped submitting letters to the council and started filing reports with the police.

The complaint detailed:

  • Years of procedural harassment framed as “safeguarding”

  • Medical diagnoses including eosinophilic asthma, muscle dysphonia, and PTSD

  • A social worker repeatedly ignoring lawful boundaries and clinical evidence

  • Coercion via visit attempts, pressure to speak despite disability, and escalation after complaint

  • Refusal of reasonable adjustment

  • Emotional trauma, home disruption, and fear of targeted retaliation

The report was clear. The suspect was named. The safeguarding fiction was reclassified as abuse.

II. What the Report Establishes

  • That Westminster’s conduct moved beyond misconduct — into criminal liability

  • That verbal disability was exploited as a pretext for escalation

  • That contact persisted after legal withdrawal of consent

  • That the parent was forced to act not as a participant — but as a whistleblower

  • That the Metropolitan Police received the evidence, the history, and the suspect’s name — all in writing

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a safeguarding officer is accused of endangering the person they were assigned to support — and that person is disabled — it’s not oversight. It’s state-backed oppression. And when the council ignores it, the archive doesn’t.

SWANK filed this because:

  • It’s a landmark moment in the procedural collapse of WCC safeguarding

  • It shows that internal remedies were exhausted — and formal complaint was criminally escalated

  • It marks the transition from policy failure to potential prosecution

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Refusal of adjustment
    • Section 26: Harassment
    • Section 27: Victimisation after complaint
    • Section 149: Public sector equality duty breached

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Coercive contact after lawful refusal

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 3: Degrading treatment
    • Article 8: Home and family life invasion
    • Article 14: Discrimination via state process

  • Children Act 1989 – Procedural weaponisation causing emotional harm to family

  • Social Work England Standards – Now submitted to police for further investigation

V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to call it safeguarding when your presence causes trauma, triggers symptoms, and violates medical boundaries. You don’t get to call it concern when the parent files a police report with your name on it. And you don’t get to call it “misunderstanding” when the allegations fit multiple statutes and a criminal code.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this file as the procedural tipping point — when disability discrimination, harassment, and administrative cruelty moved into the jurisdiction of the criminal law.

⟡ 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:

You Keep Ignoring My Requests — I’m Calling a Lawyer

 📨 SWANK Dispatch: If You’re Planning Around My Children, Involve Me

🗓️ 6 August 2020

Filed Under: unacknowledged requests, investigation opacity, parental exclusion, statutory rights ignored, child welfare irony, legal escalation, bureaucratic deflection

“The danger to my children is not the home — it’s the department.”
— A Mother Who Requested Reports, Not Surprises

On the 6th of August 2020, Polly Chromatic sent a crisp, restrained letter to Ashley Adams-Forbes, Deputy Director of the Department of Social Development, addressing what should never have needed to be repeated:

If you’re investigating my children,
you must tell me why.
You must show your reports.
You must include me in the process.

📂 I. The Legislative Obligation

Turks and Caicos law mandates transparency in child welfare investigations. But instead of receiving the required reports, Polly has received:

• Ongoing intrusion
• No rationale
• No documents
• No involvement in planning
• No formal explanation

🧠 II. The Threat to Her Children Comes from Within the System

She writes:

“It is the department itself that has put my children in harms way repeatedly through demonstrated acts of bad judgement.”

She’s not speculating. She’s documenting.
And she has receipts — from forced hospital visits, illegal home entries, and ignored medical risk warnings.

⚖️ Final Line:

“I have decided to consult with an attorney.”

It’s not a threat.
It’s a boundary.
A formal one — drawn after too many ignored questions, and too many invisible decisions made behind a mother’s back.


No comments:

They Wanted Me to Complain Quietly. I Published Instead.


⟡ They Bullied Me at the Hospital. Then Filed a Report About Me. So I Filed One About Them. ⟡
“They told me to use the complaints process. I used the internet.”

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS-MPS/EMAILS-11
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailComplaint_MetPolice_NHSBullying_ReportDeflection_PublicDisclosure.pdf
Formal statement to the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Children’s Services, and NHS staff responding to retaliatory complaint practices by hospital authorities and the refusal of police to act.

I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, the parent filed a statement with the Metropolitan Police documenting:

  • Sustained bullying and harassment from NHS hospital staff

  • The pattern of hospitals filing reports against her only when she refuses to accept mistreatment

  • The refusal of the police to investigate or act, citing the matter as “civil”

  • Her explicit refusal to engage with institutional complaints procedures designed to silence abuse

  • Her decision to archive, publish, and escalate the pattern through SWANK and public record channels

The message was also sent to social worker Kirsty Hornal, NHS GP Dr Philip Reid, and legal representatives. The subject line was crystal clear: “Now you have the truth.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That the NHS has repeatedly retaliated against a disabled parent via safeguarding escalation when challenged

  • That hospital staff used internal reporting to weaponise professional standing rather than provide care

  • That the Metropolitan Police refused to act, advising the parent to “speak to PALS”

  • That the parent rejected internal complaints systems as futile and chose transparency instead

  • That safeguarding escalation continues to function as reputational control, not protection

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when the same hospital that dismissed your oxygen crisis tries to call the police on you for defending your child,
you’re not in a healthcare setting —
you’re in an institutional theatre.

Because when the police tell you it’s not criminal to be bullied by doctors,
they’re not protecting the public — they’re preserving the hierarchy.

And because when the system tells you to file a complaint,
but never responds to one,
you stop playing their game —
and start building your own archive.

IV. Violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, and 8
    Psychological harm from institutional retaliation; denial of remedy and due process

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 27
    Victimisation after asserting disability rights

  • Care Act 2014 – Duty of Safeguarding
    Misuse of safeguarding escalation in response to protected disclosure

  • Freedom of Expression – ECHR Article 10
    Protected right to document, share, and publish public interest records outside institutional complaint loops

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a complaint.
It was a declaration of refusal.

This wasn’t about being heard.
It was about being recorded.

They wanted a form.
We gave them a file.
They wanted silence.
We gave them SWANK.

⟡ 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