⟡ SWANK Referral Record ⟡
“We’re Not Reporting a Social Worker. We’re Reporting a Pattern.”
Filed: 3 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/FTP/2025-06-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-03_SWANK_Referral_KirstyHornal_FitnessToPractise_ThreatMisuse.pdf
I. The Referent: Ms. Kirsty Hornal
This formal referral to Social Work England (SWE) concerns Kirsty Hornal, a Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services, whose conduct now requires regulatory scrutiny on the grounds of:
Retaliatory safeguarding threats
Disability discrimination
Abuse of statutory language to exert coercive pressure
Ethical erosion in public service
We are not interested in “poor communication.”
We are documenting the misuse of power — cloaked in procedure, deployed via email.
II. The Offence: A Threat With No Process
On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal stated in writing that Westminster was “applying to court for a supervision order.”
There was no:
Safeguarding trigger
Risk assessment
Multi-agency meeting
Legal basis under the Children Act 1989
Procedural compliance with PLO (Public Law Outline)
The only evident context was this:
The claimant — a disabled mother of four — had recently filed formal complaints, enforcement notices, and a civil claim against Westminster.
And in response, Ms Hornal threatened court action via email.
This is not safeguarding.
This is what safeguarding looks like when turned against the complainant.
III. Adjustment Breach and Retaliatory Tone
This email — like its follow-up — violated a written-only communication adjustment grounded in medical diagnosis, legal notice, and disability legislation.
The response to a formal demand letter (sent 24 May) was not resolution. It was redirection:
“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
A statement so dry it almost smoked.
What it wasn’t:
An answer
A safeguarding explanation
A lawful reply to medical or legal assertions
What it was:
A refusal to acknowledge accountability
An institutional threat, barely disguised as process
IV. Grounds for Referral (SWE Code of Ethics Breaches)
The referral identifies breaches of:
1.6 – Failure to respect disability adjustments
1.9 – Abuse of professional power
2.2 – Breakdown of professional boundaries
5.4 – Failure to report unsafe conduct by colleagues
This is not a matter of one message.
This is the culmination of a pattern — documented, repeated, and logged — wherein “safeguarding” has been distorted into a disciplinary weapon.
V. SWANK’s Position
We do not report individuals out of pique. We report conduct that endangers.
And we archive it when institutions pretend it didn’t happen.
Westminster’s safeguarding practice — as personified by Ms. Hornal — has ceased to serve the child and begun to discipline the parent.
We decline to be disciplined for resisting harm.
This referral, and its accompanying exhibits, have been submitted to SWE, logged in a County Court claim, and appended to an ongoing archive of institutional retaliation.
Let the record show: we were calm. They escalated.
⟡ 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.