⟡ The Triage That Must First Be Taught the Harm ⟡
“To prove fitness to practise, one must first re-instruct the regulator in what practice entails.”
Filed: 18 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/KIRSTYHORNAL-PT10633
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-18_SWANK_SWE_ComplaintAcknowledgement_KirstyHornal_PT10633.pdf
Social Work England acknowledges complaint PT-10633 regarding social worker Kirsty Hornal, requesting explanatory labour from the complainant before triage.
⟡ Chromatic v Social Work England: On the Willing Misunderstanding of Disability Misconduct ⟡
SWE, Kirsty Hornal, written-only exclusion, safeguarding misuse, complaint triage, access rights distortion, retaliation escalation, procedural fog
I. What Happened
On 18 June 2025, Polly Chromatic received formal acknowledgement of complaint PT-10633 regarding social worker Kirsty Hornal, via Social Work England’s triage team. The complaint concerns failure to honour written-only communication adjustments, mischaracterisation of disability access as “non-engagement,” and escalation of safeguarding procedures in retaliation for documented complaints.
SWE, however, replied with a request for clarification and self-summary — asking the complainant to confirm whether the regulator’s reductionist bullet points accurately captured the substance of the abuse.
II. What the Email Establishes
⟡ Deliberate flattening — complex retaliation repackaged as admin error
⟡ Complainant re-tasked as not just witness, but educator
⟡ Misuse of “safeguarding” exposed, but unrecognised — Hornal escalated after being filmed
⟡ Deflection by format — triage treats procedural discrimination as minor misunderstanding
⟡ Spectacle of seriousness — requiring harm to be retyped in order to qualify as real
This isn’t safeguarding. It’s procedural sophistry.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a professional regulator cannot recognise that treating a communication adjustment as a risk is itself the risk, the archive must intervene. When procedural discrimination is turned into a formatting issue, it is not error. It is structural sabotage in bureaucratic dress.
We do not resubmit our suffering in bullet point form.
We submit it once — and we archive it, unedited.
IV. Violations and Failures
Equality Act 2010, s.20–21 – failure to implement reasonable adjustments
Public Sector Equality Duty – repeated institutional non-recognition
Safeguarding distortion – lawful documentation framed as threat
Procedural abuse – retaliation masked as non-engagement
SWE’s threshold for "fitness to practise" structurally excludes procedural discrimination
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t clarification. It was compression.
This wasn’t triage. It was filtration.
SWANK does not recognise procedural erasure by bullet point.
We do not accept “adjustment denial” rebranded as technical ambiguity.
And we do not consent to repackaging structural harm for an inbox.
⟡ 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.