⟡ “If You’re Going to Escalate, At Least Explain Why.” ⟡
Email to Hornal and senior officials demanding justification for PLO referral amid medical crisis and lawful action
Filed: 21 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/PLO-ESCALATION-CHALLENGE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-21_SWANK_Email_PLOReferral_Hornal_RetaliationQuery.pdf
Email raising formal objections to unexplained PLO escalation by Kirsty Hornal, questioning procedural lawfulness and intent
I. What Happened
On 21 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a detailed challenge email to Westminster’s Kirsty Hornal, copying senior staff across Westminster, RBKC, NHS, and the Metropolitan Police. The email demanded an account of why PLO proceedings had been initiated following:
Her submission of legal claims and subject access requests
Ongoing medical crisis and disability documentation
Repeated requests for written-only communication
The escalation to PLO was made without new evidence, and in direct contradiction of prior agreements, medical facts, and safeguarding logic.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural breaches: PLO proceedings initiated without documented harm or updated justification
Human impact: Institutional pressure on a disabled parent during illness and litigation; retraumatisation of children
Power dynamics: Use of statutory escalation as a method of silencing and destabilising legal redress
Institutional failure: No evidence-based framework; no transparency; no lawful threshold applied
Unacceptable conduct: Treating a mother’s legal action as grounds for intervention escalation
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because there was no safeguarding risk — only safeguarding retaliation.
Because when officials are copied into an email asking “Why was this done?” and none of them respond, it’s a statement in itself.
Because this email showed the courage to name it directly: the PLO escalation was a political act, not a child protection one.
SWANK documented this as a moment of clarity: when a mother asked the question the system hoped she was too sick to ask.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989, Section 47 – misuse of statutory thresholds for personal or retaliatory motive
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – refusal of reasonable adjustments; victimisation after protected acts
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – denial of due process; unlawful interference with family life
Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – discriminatory practice and abuse of professional position
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that legal action invites scrutiny.
We do not accept that procedural escalation can occur in the absence of risk.
We do not accept that disability and self-advocacy are grounds for suspicion.
This PLO was not an oversight. It was a response — to litigation, to resistance, to truth.
And now it is part of the archive.
⟡ 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.