“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 regulator-facing document. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulator-facing document. Show all posts

The Complaint They Can’t Call ‘Too Long to Read


⟡ Alternate Filing: Streamlined for the Regulator, Sharpened for the Archive ⟡

Filed: May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/HORNAL-ALTVERSION
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05_SWANK_SWE_Complaint_KirstyHornal_AlternateVersion_Retaliation_DisabilityBreach.pdf

I. When the Original Complaint Was Too Elegant, We Filed the Efficient One Too

This is the alternate filing of SWANK’s regulatory complaint to Social Work England concerning Kirsty Hornal, authored not in fury, but in forensic restraint.

Where the first version was archival, this one is surgical:

  • Condensed timeline

  • Legal grounding prioritised over flourish

  • Explicit regulatory breach categories

  • Precision built for institutional digestion

The regulator didn’t need the velvet.
But they’ll still feel the blade.

II. Why There Are Two Versions — and Why Both Matter

The original filing documented:

  • The full retaliatory context

  • The medical violations

  • The weaponisation of procedure

This version:

  • Distills the misconduct into line-item offence

  • Mirrors the format regulators use to excuse themselves

  • Anticipates institutional deflection — and closes the gaps first

Some threats need exposition.
Others just need unanswerable formatting.

III. Why SWANK Filed It (Again)

Because submission style should never dictate regulatory credibility.
Because when the offence is egregious, you file once for memory and once for movement.
Because if they say “make it simpler,” we say “make it plainer — and attach the exhibits.”

Let the record show:

  • The first was for the archive

  • The second was for their inbox

  • The harm was the same

  • And SWANK — filed both, in sequence and supremacy

This isn’t repetition.
It’s calibration for institutional cowardice.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not soften misconduct for convenience.
We do not apologise for elegance.
We do not file only once — when their system ignores the first version out of style panic.

Let the record show:

Hornal retaliated.
The system enabled her.
The archive recorded it.
And SWANK — refiled for the regulator’s short attention span.

This is not alternate.
It is parallel strategy — one for the record, one for the excuse-proof inbox.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions