“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label police report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police report. Show all posts

In Re: Injuries Without Answers – Regal’s Knuckles and Prerogative’s Arm Under State Custody



🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
He Bled in Silence
Regal’s Knuckles, Prerogative’s Arm, and the Sound of State Neglect


Filed:
2 August 2025

Reference Code:
SWANK-ADDENDUM-0825-INJURYVISIBLE

Filename:
2025-08-02_SWANK_Addendum_Knuckles_BruiseEvidence.pdf

1-Line Summary:
Visible injuries on Regal and Prerogative observed during contact — unexplained, unreported, and indicative of ongoing abuse in state-arranged care.


I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 1 August 2025, during a supervised contact session at the Contact Centre, the mother, Polly Chromatic, observed that:

  • Regal’s knuckles were scraped and bleeding.

  • Prerogative had a distinct bruise on his upper left arm.

Both boys appeared frightened, subdued, and emotionally flat. Regal, age 16, dismissed the injury by claiming he "fell," while visibly avoiding eye contact and showing signs of emotional distress. No explanation was offered by the carers. The children’s affect was markedly different from previous visits.

Regal discreetly handed his journal to his mother — a coded attempt to speak without words. His entries further confirm degrading conditions in the foster placement, including water restrictions, surveillance, emotional abuse, and coercive control.


II. WHAT THE INJURIES INDICATE

This is not hygiene oversight. It is not playtime bruising. It is institutionalised harm manifesting on skin:

  • Scraped knuckles are consistent with defensive injury or punishment.

  • Unexplained arm bruising may reflect restraint, rough handling, or physical discipline — all categorically prohibited.

  • Refusal to speak is not “reluctance”; it is fear.

  • Journal entries are now forensic artefacts — testifying in ways the children no longer feel safe to.

These are children who know they cannot tell the truth without punishment. That silence is itself the evidence.


III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because the bruises are real.
Because the silence is coerced.
Because Regal, a child with asthma, is bleeding and no one in authority has sounded the alarm.

And because if you can see this and still do nothing — you have no business in safeguarding.


IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Duty of protection and care violated

  • Article 3 ECHR – Inhuman and degrading treatment of a child

  • Article 8 ECHR – Violation of bodily integrity and private life

  • UNCRC Article 19 – Failure to protect child from all forms of physical or mental violence

  • Fostering Regulations 2011 – Breach of standards for safe placement

  • Health & Safety – Negligent oversight in safeguarding of minor


V. SWANK’S POSITION

Regal bled. Prerogative bruised.
And the carers — agents of the state — offered no explanation, no record, no care.

The mother filed a police report (Ref: TAA-38034-25-0101-IR) and submitted sworn evidence. Yet the foster carers remain in charge, and the children remain under control.

This post stands as recordreproach, and retaliatory mirror. It declares:

You may try to bury the truth —
but bruises surface.
And the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue does not forget.

Filed in unshakable fidelity to the children’s pain,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com


⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

In Re: Regal’s Journal and the Statutory Fiction of Safe Foster Care



🪞 SWANK London Ltd.
The Report They Never Wanted Filed
The Regal Entry: In Re Criminal Neglect Disguised as Foster Care


Filed: 2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CRIMELOG-0825-DEL
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_CrimeLog_FosterNeglect_DelPoliceReport.pdf
1-Line Summary:
A formal police report documenting food deprivation, asthma risk, and racialised treatment of a 10-year-old U.S. citizen in state care.


I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 2 August 2025, a police report was filed by Polly Chromatic on behalf of her 10-year-old son, Kingdom, documenting criminal neglect and discriminatory abuse in a Westminster-commissioned foster placement.

According to a handwritten journal entry authored by Regal and recovered during supervised contact, his brother was explicitly told "you can’t eat because you’re 10." The journal further describes a regime of arbitrary restrictions:
– No water bottles upstairs
– No pencils upstairs
– Mocking comments tied to his American identity

Kingdom suffers from eosinophilic asthma, a chronic and medically serious condition. These restrictions jeopardised his health, emotional wellbeing, and autonomy. His mother reported this treatment as criminal neglect, compounded by disability discrimination and xenophobic verbal abuse.

The report was submitted under police reference TAA-38016-25-0101-IR.


II. WHAT THE POLICE REPORT ESTABLISHES

This is not a hypothetical. It is not an allegation dressed in fury.
It is a filed, timestamped, and jurisdictionally sound police report alleging:

  • Medical negligence through hydration denial

  • Psychological abuse via infantilising rules

  • Racial and national discrimination toward a Black American boy

  • Safeguarding failure in a local authority-commissioned foster home

  • Documented emotional harm recovered in the child's own handwriting

Regal was not acting out — he was documenting. And now, so are we.


III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because no foster carer should tell a child when they can eat based on their age.
Because asthma is not a disciplinary tool.
Because cruelty delivered in a soft voice is still cruelty.
Because the child wrote it down — and the mother filed it — and we archive it.

This isn’t just parenting interference. It is criminal interference in a child’s health, development, and liberty.


IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 1(3)(b), 17, and 47: Welfare neglect and child protection failure

  • Children and Families Act 2014, s.19 – Violation of wellbeing duty

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 12, 13, 19 – Best interests, right to be heard, expression, and protection from harm

  • ECHR Article 8 – Violation of private and family life

  • Equality Act 2010, s.6 and s.20 – Discrimination on grounds of disability

  • Criminal Law – Emotional abuse, neglect, and racial hostility


V. SWANK’S POSITION

This report has now been entered into the SWANK CrimeLog.

We do not merely document harm — we criminalise it, we narrate it, and we dare it to survive scrutiny.

Westminster placed this child.
A foster carer enforced deprivation.
The state concealed it — and a mother reported it.
Now we preserve it.

This is not safeguarding.
This is a cover-up wearing lanyards.

Filed with institutional disgust and permanent archival scorn,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
www.swanklondon.com


⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

In Re: Hornal (Emotional Abuse, Asthma Neglect, and the Theatre of Safeguarding)



🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

The Authority That Mocked Asthma
A Police Report on Kirsty Hornal’s Dereliction of Safeguarding Duty, Filed in Maternal Fury


Filed: 2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-POLICEREPORT-0825-HORNAL
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_ChildAbuseNeglect.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Police report filed against Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for emotional abuse, medical neglect, and disability-related discrimination.


I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 2 August 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal police report to the Metropolitan Police against Kirsty Hornal, a Westminster Children’s Services social worker, for her role in what is now alleged to be a pattern of institutional child abuse.

The report outlines incidents spanning from 23 June to 2 August 2025, during which:

  • Contact was obstructed between a mother and her four U.S. citizen children;

  • Medical protocols were ignored, especially concerning asthma management;

  • Children were mocked for their nationality and subjected to psychological destabilisation;

  • Basic emotional expression and communication were suppressed;

  • And parental rights were actively undermined by procedural hostility and coercive interference.

The police report is not speculative. It is grounded in handwritten evidence from the children themselves, particularly Romeo, whose journal entries have since been submitted to the Family Court and safeguarding authorities.


II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The following safeguarding breaches and statutory crimes are implicated:

  • Psychological abuse through controlling behaviour and emotional suppression;

  • Neglect of asthma-related care;

  • Disability discrimination via bans on water bottles, physical activity, and routine;

  • Procedural sabotage of parental contact and therapeutic intervention;

  • Nationality-based mockery — “You’re from America, you don’t know how to ride a bike” was not a joke, but an indictment.

This is not child protection.
It is cross-border state violence in the guise of procedure.


III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because safeguarding laws do not exist to shield the perpetrators.

Because the medical needs of disabled children are non-negotiable, not discretionary.

Because Romeo’s journal is not art therapy — it is admissible evidence.

And because when a mother files a police report, it is not hysteria.
It is history correcting itself.


IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to promote welfare and respect wishes

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory treatment on grounds of disability and nationality

  • Article 8, ECHR – Breach of the right to family life

  • UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Suppression of child voice and expression

  • Safeguarding Breach – Emotional harm under local authority supervision


V. SWANK’S POSITION

This police report will not gather dust.
It will gather precedent.

SWANK asserts that the actions of Kirsty Hornal constitute institutional misconductchild endangerment, and breach of both UK and international legal norms.

The children deserve better.
The system deserves exposure.
And the perpetrators deserve formal legal consequence.

Filed under Article 10, velvet wrath, and maternal defence,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 www.swanklondon.com


⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

Apparently My ‘Need’ Disappeared When I Filed a Police Report



⟡ “I Filed a Police Report — So They Closed the Support Plan” ⟡
When the safeguarding system can't defend itself, it retaliates. This is the document that proves it.

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RETALIATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CINClosure_RetaliationPostPoliceReport.pdf
Email to Kirsty Hornal referencing police report BCA-10622-25-0101-IR and documenting Westminster’s retaliatory closure of the Child in Need (CIN) plan — not based on support completed, but because complaint was filed.


I. What Happened

On 15 February 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal police report against Westminster Children’s Services for disability discrimination, safeguarding misuse, and psychological harm.

Within weeks — without request, consent, or cause — the CIN plan was closed. No milestone had been reached. No risks had resolved. No parent had disengaged. But one thing had happened: the family made a report.

On 15 April 2025, this email was sent to record it.

The email:

  • Cites the active police complaint

  • Names the sudden closure of support as procedural retaliation

  • Reasserts written-only disability accommodation

  • Questions the legitimacy of the closure

  • Treats the CIN framework not as care — but as a tool of conditional compliance


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Westminster withdrew support immediately after legal accountability was pursued

  • CIN was being used as a compliance filter, not a support mechanism

  • The closure of the case was not protective — it was punitive

  • Disability-adjusted communication was treated as refusal

  • Safeguarding frameworks were invoked only when the parent was silent — and withdrawn when they spoke


III. Why SWANK Filed It

This letter reveals a dangerous pattern: state agencies weaponising procedural withdrawal as institutional punishment. You are “in need” as long as you are quiet. Once you file a complaint? The need evaporates — or so they pretend.

SWANK archived this email to:

  • Preserve a precise timestamp on retaliatory conduct

  • Document how safeguarding support becomes conditional on silence

  • Expose how disability accommodations are reframed as opposition


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 27 (victimisation), Section 20 (failure to adjust), Section 149 (public sector duty)

  • Children Act 1989 – Closure of support without regard to actual need or safety

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 6 (retaliation for legal process)

  • Social Work England Standards – Misuse of frameworks, concealment of institutional accountability

  • UK GDPR – Data omission and intentional mischaracterisation of parent engagement


V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t stop supporting a family because they reported you. Unless, of course, you were never supporting them in the first place — just surveilling. This document is proof that the safeguarding framework isn’t failing. It’s retaliating.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

  • Independent review of CIN closure timelines following complaint

  • Reopening of case support records with full external audit

  • Legal recognition that retaliatory withdrawal is procedural harm


⟡ 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.

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: The Police Were Informed. The Council Was Not Amused. ⟡



⟡ “We Filed a Police Report. They Filed It Under ‘Customer Relations.’” ⟡
Email submitting formal police report against Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown — forwarded to council complaints teams for the record

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/POLICE-REPORT-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_PoliceReport_HornalBrown_RetaliationAbuse.pdf
Email forwarding police report against two senior social workers for retaliation and harassment, sent to both borough complaint desks


I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services complaint inboxes. Attached was a police report naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated, coordinated acts of institutional retaliation, harassment, and discriminatory conduct.

The submission was forwarded with no introduction, no hedging, and no apology. The subject line said it all:
“Police Report for Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown.”

It was not a request for action. It was a declaration of record.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Abuse of safeguarding process for retaliatory purposes

  • Human impact: Institutional intrusion, legal destabilisation, and emotional harm to children

  • Power dynamics: Social work used as a mechanism of silencing — backed by management hierarchy

  • Institutional failure: A system so accustomed to complaint that it routes police reports to customer service

  • Unacceptable conduct: Normalising surveillance, discrediting resistance, retaliating against legal redress


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because submitting a police report against two public servants should not feel like forwarding a broadband complaint.
Because the public must see what the state refuses to name: that retaliation is operational, not accidental.
Because the council’s inbox is not neutral. It is strategic.
Because when you file a police report and no one calls you back, the archive becomes your hotline.

SWANK documented this not to inform the public — but to outlive the silence that followed.


IV. Violations

  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Sections 4A & 2 – harassment, alarm, and distress by public officials

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 26 & 27 – harassment and victimisation linked to disability and protected activity

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – discrimination, harm avoidance, and abuse of power

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misuse of safeguarding powers to intimidate rather than protect


V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that customer service desks are neutral when violence wears a lanyard.
We do not accept that “retaliation” is too dramatic a word when the pattern fits the law.
We do not accept that institutional violence must be polite to be disqualifying.

This was not a miscommunication. This was strategy.
And SWANK has now timestamped it.


⟡ 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.

⟡ Chromatic v Ryu-Kai Referral: When Participation Became Suspicion ⟡



⟡ “A Karate Referral is Not a Safeguarding Concern.” ⟡
Formal police report notification after malicious referral targeting a disabled mother and her children

Filed: 18 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBK-WESTMINSTER/DISCRIMINATION-REFERRAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-18_SWANK_Email_RyuKai_DisabilityPoliceReport.pdf
Email to martial arts studio and professionals confirming police report filed for malicious safeguarding referral


I. What Happened

On 18 April 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a formal notification email to the Ryu-Kai martial arts team and multiple professionals from Westminster, RBKC, NHS, and the Metropolitan Police. The message confirmed that she had filed a police report following what she identified as a malicious safeguarding referral tied to disability discrimination.

The referral reportedly originated after one of Polly’s children attended martial arts classes — and the resulting escalation was deemed by her to be both medically unfounded and procedurally retaliatory.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Triggering child protection involvement based on a lawful extracurricular activity

  • Human impact: Trauma to the child targeted, reputational harm, and reinforcement of surveillance culture

  • Power dynamics: Abuse of safeguarding authority to scrutinise disabled families for accessing community resources

  • Institutional failure: No accountability for why a child doing karate became a multi-agency concern

  • Unacceptable conduct: Treating a police report as provocation rather than protection


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what happens when disabled families try to live normally.
Because Ryu-Kai was never the problem — but they were copied in like it was.
Because the system’s default is not care. It is control.
Because it is now on record that a martial arts class became the pretext for multi-agency intrusion.

SWANK archived this as an emblem of how easily the ordinary is weaponised — especially when the parent is disabled, vocal, and unwilling to be intimidated.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 15 & 27 – discrimination arising from disability; victimisation after protected action

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to promote the welfare of children through overreach

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – interference with private life and access to community participation

  • Professional standards (Social Work England) – breach of ethical neutrality and unjustified referral conduct


V. SWANK’s Position

Martial arts is not neglect.
Legal police reports are not “non-engagement.”
Being disabled is not cause for escalation.

SWANK does not accept weaponised referrals for public activities.
We do not accept retaliatory scrutiny masked as concern.
We do not accept a safeguarding system that cannot distinguish between threat and therapy.

This referral was a warning shot — and now, it’s a watermark.


⟡ 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.

This Is the Day the Social Worker Became the Suspect.



⟡ “I Told the Police She Was Abusing Her Power. I Filed It As a Crime.” ⟡
A written submission to the Metropolitan Police naming Westminster safeguarding officer Kirsty Hornal as the agent of coercion, disability harassment, and safeguarding misuse. This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a pattern. And now, it’s on record.

Filed: 15 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/KH-CRIM-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-15_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_ProceduralMisconduct_DisabilityAbuse_CriminalFiling.pdf
Formal complaint submitted to the Metropolitan Police (Ref: BCA-10622-25-0101-IR), alleging misconduct by Kirsty Hornal of Westminster City Council. Accusations include disability discrimination, coercion under the guise of safeguarding, and psychological harm. Medical diagnoses disclosed. Pattern documented. Crime reported.


I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic filed a police report.
Not a complaint. Not a concern.
A formal, timestamped, criminal allegation — with:

  • A named suspect: Kirsty Hornal

  • A pattern of coercive conduct mislabelled as “support”

  • Verbal pressure applied despite diagnosed muscle dysphonia and eosinophilic asthma

  • A timeline of escalating harm, home intrusion, and procedural deception

  • A legal explanation of how “voluntary” safeguarding was used as leverage against a disabled person

This wasn’t metaphorical harm. It was physical, medical, and documented under criminal reference.


II. What the Report Establishes

  • That the state’s behaviour was not therapeutic — it was coercive

  • That verbal contact was used against a known disability

  • That emotional distress was a product of deliberate procedural strategy

  • That Westminster staff knew about the medical conditions — and leveraged them

  • That the parent was forced to report her own support service as a source of harm


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability is not a flaw to be managed — it’s a legal status that demands protection.
Because safeguarding is not above the law.
And because this was the moment the State went from negligent to accused.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It is a written, police-confirmed turning point

  • It proves that the harm was not just witnessed — it was reported

  • It memorialises the fact that the safeguarding officer became the suspect

  • It begins the record not of concern — but of criminal culpability


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Reasonable adjustment denied
    • Section 26: Harassment via repeated verbal pressure
    • Section 27: Retaliation post-complaint
    • Section 149: Duty to prevent discrimination not met

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 –
    • Coercive pattern of communication after boundaries were legally set

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 3: Inhuman treatment via sustained psychological coercion
    • Article 8: Violation of family life and privacy
    • Article 14: Discrimination by procedural pathway

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Institutional disruption to home life under false pretext

  • Social Work England Misconduct Framework –
    • Failure to respect disability, legal boundaries, and safe practice


V. SWANK’s Position

When a safeguarding officer causes the harm she was sent to prevent — and uses disability to do it — she stops being a professional. She becomes a perpetrator. And when the parent files a police report and the state keeps sending her anyway, the issue isn’t care. It’s institutional complicity.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this document as a criminal declaration of procedural abuse — filed to the police, named by statute, archived in full.


⟡ 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.

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.

Encrypted, Delivered, Filed: SWANK’s Crime Report on Sam Brown



⟡ SWANK Criminal Retaliation Archive ⟡

“Sam Brown Was Named. Because That’s What You Do When You’re Not Afraid.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/POLICE/ROC10237/ENCRYPTED-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_PoliceReport_SamBrown_EncryptedEmails_DisabilityRetaliation_ROC10237.pdf


I. Encrypted Emails. Procedural Threats. Retaliation in Disguise.

This police report was filed with precision. It names the professional. It outlines the retaliation. And it does not request apology.

It demands record.

On 21 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. formally notified police of a series of encrypted communications sent by Sam Brown of Westminster Children’s Services, each one:

  • Unsolicited

  • Post-complaint

  • Post-litigation

  • And in direct breach of a written-only medical adjustment on file since 2023

They encrypted the contact.

We decrypted the motive — and filed it.


II. What the Report Establishes

  • Sam Brown is the named subject of ROC-10237-25-0101-IR

  • The encrypted messages were sent following:

    • A live N1 claim

    • A police report against another officer (Kirsty Hornal)

    • Multiple safeguarding complaints

    • A public SWANK archive of procedural abuse

  • The messages were:

    • Designed to evade legal scrutiny

    • Delivered without consent

    • Clearly strategic, not supportive

  • The filing cites:

    • Disability retaliation

    • Race and gender bias

    • The cumulative impact of prolonged contact misuse

    • And the use of encrypted systems as a tool of institutional threat delivery

This wasn’t email.

This was polite coercion, couriered through encryption.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding cannot coexist with covert harassment.
Because encryption does not erase motive.
Because disability adjustments are not opt-in.

We filed this because:

  • Sam Brown knew the adjustment

  • Westminster had been repeatedly notified

  • The encryption was deliberate — and so is this report

Let the record show:

  • The message was sent

  • The adjustment was breached

  • The retaliation was named

  • And the police were informed

Now, the public is.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept encrypted threats as “support.”
We do not permit safeguarding staff to act as personal enforcers for institutional revenge.
We do not redact names to protect patterns.

Let the record show:

The professional was named.
The messages were documented.
The archive was updated.
And SWANK — did not hesitate.

This wasn’t liaison.
It was a weaponised message with a digital seal.

Now it’s filed — and not just with the police.


⟡ 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.



Retaliation Filed. Reference Assigned.



⟡ SWANK Criminal Record Filing ⟡

“The Police Got the Email. We Got the Number.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/ROC10979
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_CoerciveThreat_DisabilityDiscrimination_ROC10979.pdf


I. What Constitutes a Threat?

On 31 May 2025, Ms Kirsty Hornal — Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services — emailed the Director of SWANK London Ltd. to declare her intention to “liaise with legal teams” and consider “whether this needs to be taken to court.”

There was:

  • No meeting

  • No statutory trigger

  • No updated risk assessment

  • And no lawful cause to make such a declaration

What there was — unmistakably — was a coercive safeguarding threat
delivered in writing, in the absence of lawful process, in breach of a written-only communication adjustment, and timed to coincide with active litigation.

So we did what one does with threats that violate the law:
We filed a police report.


II. Report Details: ROC10979-25-0101-IR

On 2 June 2025 at 14:01, SWANK submitted a formal online crime report to the Metropolitan Police, recorded under reference: ROC10979-25-0101-IR.

The report documents:

  • The full contents of the coercive email

  • The retaliatory timing in context of live civil litigation

  • The impact on a disabled complainant with PTSD, muscle tension dysphonia, and asthma

  • The clear violation of the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998

This was not merely tone-deaf.
It was criminally aggressive masquerading as professional correspondence.


III. Disability, Retaliation, and Risk by Email

The report also includes detailed health context:

  • PTSD triggered by prior safeguarding abuse

  • Medically documented written-only communication requirement

  • Recurrent retaliation from social workers following formal complaints

  • Increased respiratory and psychological harm from surprise threats

The email was not “support.”
It was an escalation tactic sent from a taxpayer-funded keyboard.


IV. SWANK’s Position

Safeguarding, in its original meaning, was meant to protect the vulnerable.
Now it is routinely wielded to discredit them.

We reject that transformation.

Ms Hornal's behaviour was neither accidental nor misinterpreted. It was part of an institutional script — one that moves from refusal, to threat, to silence.

That script now has a crime reference number.
We will not be gaslit. We will be heard in record.


⟡ 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.



Police Report – Coercive Email Threat by Kirsty Hornal (WCC), Filed 2 June 2025 | ROC-10979-25-0101-IR



🗞️ Police Report Filed: Coercive Threat Issued by Public Official in Breach of Disability Law

Metropolitan Police Reference: ROC-10979-25-0101-IR

Date Submitted: 2 June 2025 at 14:01
Subject of Report: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services


📍 Formal Title for Archive and Parliamentary Index

Metropolitan Police Online Report: Coercive Threat by Local Authority Officer in Contravention of Disability Adjustments – 31 May 2025


💬 Stylised Summary – For Dignified Circulation

On 2 June 2025, a formal police report was filed by Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., documenting a coercive and retaliatory communication from Ms Kirsty Hornal, a social worker operating under Westminster City Council.

The report details an unsolicited and psychologically aggressive email dated 31 May 2025, in which Ms Hornal, following a series of active legal claims and formal complaints, threatened to escalate matters by “liaising with legal teams” to determine “whether this needs to be taken to court.”

This communication is identified as:

  • Unprovoked

  • Retaliatory in nature

  • In direct breach of a medically mandated, written-only communication protocol

  • Issued amidst formal judicial scrutiny of Westminster Children’s Services

The email has been reported as part of a broader pattern of procedural hostility, institutional abuse of process, and targeted discrimination against a disabled mother and civil litigant.


🩺 Contextual Grounds Provided to Police Authorities

The report included extensive evidentiary and medical context, such as:

  • Documented diagnoses of eosinophilic asthmamuscle tension dysphonia, and complex PTSD, all of which render unsolicited contact medically unsafe

  • Prior safeguarding interference involving racialised assumptions and targeting of a mixed-heritage family

  • Westminster’s well-documented failure to comply with written communication accommodations

  • A wider pattern of institutional complicity, including previous failures by police and social services to act impartially or lawfully


🧛‍♀️ Named Individual and Institutional Web

Suspect: Ms Kirsty Hornal
Address on file: 4 Frampton Street, Westminster
Affiliation: Westminster Children’s Services
Associates also under scrutiny:

  • Mr Sam Brown – Safeguarding Officer

  • Ms Sarah Newman – Executive Director

  • Ms Rhiannon Hodgson – Management Liaison


🩸 Key Allegations Included in the Report

  • Issuing a coercive threat via electronic communication

  • Violation of a disability-adjusted communication protocol

  • Causing psychological trauma and respiratory exacerbation

  • Retaliation following formal legal and ombudsman complaints

  • Intersectional discrimination on the basis of disability and race


This report has now been appended to an active judicial archive, including:

  • Civil Claim (N1)

  • Injunction Request (N16A)

  • Judicial Review (N461)

  • Multiple regulatory complaints across SWE, LGSCO, ICO, NHS Trusts, and GMC

It shall also be published as part of the SWANK Public Archive documenting State-Enabled Retaliation Against Disabled Parents.



When “Safeguarding” Arrives as a Threat



⟡ SWANK Police Escalation Archive – WCC ⟡
“This Wasn’t an Email. It Was Coercion, and I Reported It to the Police.”
Filed: 1 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/KIRSTY-HORNAL-COERCIVE-EMAIL-STATEMENT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-01_SWANK_WCC_KirstyHornal_CoerciveEmail_SupplementalStatement_MetPolice.pdf
Author: Polly Chromatic


I. From Professional Disagreement to Police Record

This supplemental witness statement was submitted to the Metropolitan Police following a retaliatory and coercive email sent by Kirsty Hornal, acting in her capacity as a safeguarding officer for Westminster Children’s Services.

At issue:

  • A communication sent in knowing violation of a formal written-only disability adjustment

  • A deliberate reference to a supervision order application with no legal threshold met

  • A strategic tone: not protective, but intimidating — designed to exert control

This wasn’t support.
It was a power play, sent in writing —
and now, formally recorded as harassment.


II. What the Statement Establishes

  • That the parent had:

    • A documented diagnosis of PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma

    • A clearly communicated communication adjustment

    • Prior safeguarding complaints already filed

  • That the officer:

    • Ignored those adjustments

    • Sent an escalation threat via email

    • Operated outside protocol, outside process, and inside power

This isn’t “child welfare.”
It’s a civilian being pressured by government email — during a known medical vulnerability.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because disability adjustments are not optional.
Because safeguarding threats issued without legal basis are institutional coercion.
Because when the state weaponises email tone — we weaponise clarity.

We filed this because:

  • This wasn’t a safeguarding notice — it was a warning dressed as a “check-in”

  • This wasn’t a misunderstanding — it was deliberate intrusion into a controlled boundary

  • The person in power had options — and chose the one with legal exposure

Let the record show:

The email was received.
The adjustment was ignored.
The officer was named.
And the report — went to the police.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept professional roles as shields for misconduct.
We do not accept threats buried in pleasantries.
We do not accept that a safeguarding officer may breach medical law because of discomfort with dissent.

Let the record show:

The report was filed.
The statement was signed.
The archive is permanent.

This wasn’t an overreaction.
It was the minimum required response to digital coercion.


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.


⟡ The Day I Reported a Social Worker for Coercive Control ⟡



⟡ The Day I Reported a Social Worker for Coercive Control ⟡
“She said it was voluntary — right before she escalated it to court.”

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/POLICE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_CoerciveControlNegligence.pdf
Metropolitan Police report submitted against social worker Kirsty Hornal citing coercive control, medical negligence, and record falsification.


I. What Happened

On 16 April 2025, a formal police report was submitted by a disabled parent against Kirsty Hornal, a senior social worker at Westminster Children’s Services.

The report details a pattern of:

  • Coercive control

  • Procedural retaliation following complaints

  • Forced verbal interaction despite known respiratory disability

  • Misuse and falsification of records to justify unnecessary safeguarding escalation

  • Negligent exposure to harm during periods of illness, including after a sewer gas leak

The time frame covers 1 May 2024 to 16 April 2025 — a full year of systemic disregard, culminating in an unlawful PLO threat delivered shortly after this complaint was made.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Kirsty Hornal used her position to retaliate against a parent who asserted legal boundaries

  • That medical evidence was routinely dismissed or used manipulatively

  • That home visits were conducted during illness, despite being medically harmful

  • That procedural steps were taken after a police report — not before

  • That Westminster leveraged escalation to neutralise legal exposure, not to protect children


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when a social worker is reported to police, and the only institutional response is escalation, we are no longer dealing with child protection — we are documenting institutional retaliation.

This report was filed not because of a single action, but because of an organised pattern:

  • Ignoring medical limitations

  • Misrepresenting facts in records

  • Exerting pressure while claiming “voluntariness”

  • Retaliating after a complaint

  • Escalating to PLO after a police report

This is not frontline error.
This is administrative coercion in slow motion.


IV. Violations

  • Serious Misconduct – Police Referral (Single Online Home)
    Submitted under risk to life, health, and liberty

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20
    Repeated breach of reasonable adjustments (respiratory disability)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8, 14
    Discrimination, interference with private life, denial of justice

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Safeguarding law used in bad faith after retaliation

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997
    Pattern of unwanted contact after lawful refusal


V. SWANK’s Position

This was not an oversight.
This was retaliation wrapped in a visit.

This was not safeguarding.
This was state coercion weaponised against disability.

When complaints are followed by PLO letters —
When disability is met with surveillance —
When records are edited but reality is not —

We document. You escalate.
We archive. You deny.
We file. And now, we publish.


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.


They Had the Notice. They Had the Report. Then Came the PLO.

⟡ “We Refused to Cooperate. They Retaliated Anyway.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Forwards Formal Refusal Letter and Police Report Against Kirsty Hornal to Legal Counsel, After Sending to Westminster and RBKC Officers

Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_Email_LauraSavage_RefusalNotice_PoliceReport_Kirsty_CooperationTermination.pdf
Summary: Forwarded email confirming delivery of refusal notice and police report against Kirsty Hornal to Merali Beedle and Blackfords, securing legal service and timeline verification.


I. What Happened

On 18 February 2025, Polly Chromatic (then writing under her legal name) sent a formal email titled:

“Formal Notice of Refusal to Cooperate Due to Failure to Accommodate My Disability, Emotional/Psychological Abuse, and Harm to My Family”

She attached:

  • Refusal to Cooperate Letter

  • Police Report against Kirsty Hornal

Recipients:

  • Legal counsel: Laura Savage and Simon O’Meara

  • CC’d: Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Samira Issa, Glen Peache, Philip Reid (NHS), and multiple safeguarding officers at Westminster and RBKC

This confirmed that:

  • All relevant actors received the refusal and police documentation

  • Legal service was secure and traceable

  • PLO retaliation occurred after these notices — confirming retaliatory motive


II. What the Record Establishes

• The refusal to cooperate and police complaint were submitted before safeguarding threats
• All actors — from Sarah Newman to NHS and lawyers — were copied
• Laura Savage was formally briefed for future legal defence
• The file functions as a service record and legal timeline anchor
• It proves that Westminster’s next step (the PLO) came after full awareness of the harm they were causing


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because refusal to cooperate is a legal right, not a trigger for escalation.
Because forwarding it to counsel is the act that turns harm into evidence.
Because this email will appear in court before the PLO letter does.

SWANK logs every refusal the system ignored — and every silence it responded to with force.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a refusal after abuse is defiance.
We do not accept that legal notice is a loophole for retaliation.
We do not accept that this chain can be denied — because we filed it.

This wasn’t refusal. It was documentation.
And SWANK marked the day cooperation ended — and retaliation began.


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.