Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): social worker misconduct

Showing posts with label social worker misconduct. Show all posts

Referenced in: Re C (Due Process) [2012] EWCA Civ 1489 — “Boundaries Exist to Protect, Not to Decorate

⟡ “The Contact That Defied the Court — Because Instructions Were Treated as Suggestions” ⟡

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILY/CONTACT-BREACH
Download PDF – 2025-06-25_Addendum_Judicial_Review_Unauthorised_Contact_Social_Worker.pdf
Addendum to Judicial Review evidencing deliberate bypass of procedural instructions by a social worker during active High Court proceedings.

I. What Happened

On 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted an addendum to her Judicial Review claim.

She reported that Kirsty Hornal, a social worker already under complaint and Judicial Review scrutiny, made direct contact attempts with the children’s grandmother and father.

This occurred:

While live High Court proceedings, a discharge application, and a U.S. Embassy consular notification were underway.
Despite repeated formal instructions that all communication must pass exclusively through the claimant or the Court.
In a context of escalating procedural breaches and institutional overreach.

This was not professional engagement. It was an attempted end-run around accountability.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

A calculated disregard for procedural clarity and fairness.
An effort to build alternative narratives by circumventing the claimant’s legal standing.
The erosion of basic due process in live, high-stakes litigation.
A pattern of conduct designed to weaken the parent’s ability to exercise legal rights.

This was not safeguarding. It was circumvention.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because process exists precisely to prevent the weaponisation of informal channels.
Because no parent should have to fear that formal instructions will be ignored at whim.
Because when professionals disregard court-bounded communication, justice becomes theatre.
And because SWANK does not archive theatre. We archive evidence.

IV. Violations

Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing
Family Procedure Rules — Communications in active proceedings
Social Work England Standards — Respecting rights, boundaries, and due process
Equality Act 2010 — Procedural fairness for disabled litigants

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a misunderstanding.
⟡ This was an overt bypass. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of boundary breaches under the banner of “professional judgement.”
We will document every incursion. Every time.

⟡ 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.

Underpinned by: K and T v Finland [2001] ECHR 657 — “Family Life Requires Procedural Integrity

⟡ “The Bypass — Because Procedural Boundaries Are Not Optional” ⟡

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PROFESSIONAL/BOUNDARY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Urgent_Addendum_Kirsty_Hornal_Procedural_Violation.pdf
Urgent addendum reporting deliberate circumvention of procedural instructions by a social worker under active complaint and judicial review.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted an urgent addendum to Social Work England. She reported that Kirsty Hornal, already the subject of formal complaints and a live Judicial Review, initiated direct contact with both the children’s grandmother and father.

This contact was made:

Despite explicit, written instructions requiring all communications to go exclusively through her as the parent and legal party.
In the context of an open procedural dispute over the same safeguarding measures.
While Ms. Hornal’s conduct was under regulatory scrutiny.

This act was not a neutral administrative oversight — it was an active triangulation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Disregard for clearly communicated procedural boundaries.
Continuation of coercive engagement designed to marginalise the parent’s role.
A pattern of behaviour that undermines trust in professional neutrality.
Escalation of institutional overreach in defiance of due process.

This was not a helpful update. It was a deliberate bypass.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when professionals ignore procedural instructions, it is not harmless — it is a strategic erasure of authority.
Because consent and clarity are not inconvenient technicalities, but the core of legitimate process.
Because every unrecorded boundary violation becomes precedent for the next.
And because SWANK does not allow these patterns to evaporate unexamined.

IV. Violations

Social Work England Professional Standards — Promote rights, respect views, uphold trust.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8: Right to private and family life.
Equality Act 2010 — Procedural fairness for disabled litigants.
Family Procedure Rules — Communication protocols in live proceedings.

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not professional discretion.
⟡ This was procedural contempt. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the quiet normalisation of boundary violations as standard practice.
We will document every bypass. Every time.

⟡ 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.

Ten Years of Saying the Same Thing, and Still No One Listens.

🖋 𝒮𝒲𝒜𝒩𝒦 Dispatch | 10 January 2025
MISUNDERSTANDINGS? NO, WILLFUL IGNORANCE.
Also titled: “Ten Years of Saying the Same Thing, and Still No One Listens.”

📍 Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
🗂 Filed Under: Communication Breakdown · Panic Attacks · Institutional Neglect · Email Ignorance · Social Worker Defiance · Mental Health Crisis · SWANK Chronic Distress Log

To the Selectively Illiterate:

Glen Peache, Sarah Newman, Eric Wedge-Bull, Kirsty Hornal, Rhiannon Hodgson, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Rachel Pullen, Milena Abdula-Gomes, Samira Issa
Cc: aaforbes@gov.tc, alsmith@gov.tc, Annabelle Kapoor
Bcc: Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Philip Reid, Gideon Mpalanyi, Nannette Nicholson

📩 THE EMAILS THAT CAUSED A CRISIS—BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO READ

“The refusal of humans to read my emails and/or not take me seriously is causing me panic attacks since it’s the only way I can communicate.”
“I don’t know how else to explain it. I’ve been saying the same thing for ten years and no one wants to read or listen.”

This is not ambiguity. This is documentation.
This is not emotional instability. It’s institutional cruelty disguised as procedure.

🧠 TRANSLATION FOR THE PROFESSIONALY HARD-OF-READING:

– Written communication is not optional for disabled people.
– Ignoring it is not minor. It is medical malpractice.
– Panic attacks are not personality flaws. They are evidence of your failure.

You are not misunderstood. You are unfit.

⚠️ THIS IS A CRISIS, NOT A QUIBBLE

The refusal to accommodate written communication for a disabled mother is not just a bureaucratic blunder.
It is neglect, cloaked in procedure.
It is discrimination, typed in Times New Roman.
It is violence, filed as “no reply necessary.”

Polly Chromatic
Typing to be heard. Fighting to breathe. Archiving to outlast.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Distress Logged. All Excuses Rejected.

Ten Things You’d Know If You Were Actually Qualified to Hold Power

🖋 𝒮𝒲𝒜𝒩𝒦 Dispatch | 12 January 2025
PATTERNS OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR: A REFRESHER COURSE FOR THE CONSCIENCELESS

📍 Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✒️ Author: Polly Chromatic
🗂 Filed Under: Ethical Remediation Toolkit · Social Worker Re-Education · Professional Dignity Collapse · RBKC/WCC Integrity Vacuum · SWANK Moral Restoration Bureau

To the Department Formerly Known as ‘Professionals’:

✏️ A Public Service Announcement (Disguised as a Lecture)

Somewhere between your safeguarding theatre and the false allegations you mistook for duties, you misplaced your ethical foundations.
Not to worry. I’ve curated a syllabus.

🧭 THE LOST CURRICULUM — AN ETHICAL SKELETON KEY

1. Honesty & Transparency
– State your actions plainly. Conceal nothing you’d penalise in others.
→ Impact: Public trust. Currently absent.

2. Fairness & Justice
– No vendettas. No tokenism. No procedural show trials.
→ Impact: Legitimacy, if you remember what that feels like.

3. Respect for Persons
– Interrupting disabled parents mid-breath? Not noble.
→ Impact: Credibility, faintly possible.

4. Accountability
– Stand behind your own paperwork. No ghostwriters in lanyards.
→ Impact: Consequence, at last.

5. Altruism
– Helping someone while punishing their tone? That’s not altruism. That’s performance.
→ Impact: Actual support.

6. Confidentiality
– Private data is not a whisper network.
→ Impact: One less FOI on your desk.

7. Courage
– Write the truth, even if it contradicts your strategy.
→ Impact: Heroism, albeit unfamiliar.

8. Humility
– Try: “We were wrong.” It won’t kill you.
→ Impact: Professional rebirth.

9. Environmental Responsibility
– Stop triggering asthma in medically fragile homes.
→ Impact: Breathable air. Imagine.

10. Professional Integrity
– No falsified notes. No weaponised minutes. No polished lies.
→ Impact: Legal documents that don’t read like satire.

Polly Chromatic
Archivist of Behavioural Decay · Unpaid Ethics Consultant to Her Majesty’s Dismal Services
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Codes of Conduct Archived. All Virtues Filed.

How a Mother’s Medical Emergency Became a Pretext for State Intrusion

🚨 SWANK Dispatch: I Was Nearly Dead — They Called My Kids Orphans and Searched My House

🗓️ 18 October 2021

Filed Under: medical trauma, asthma emergency, unlawful search, child interrogation, disability discrimination, intellectual exploitation, emergency protocol abuse, family rights violation, safeguarding weaponisation, Grand Turk misconduct

“I was in respiratory collapse.
The police arrived asking if I’d eaten.
Then they called my children orphans,
searched my house,
and grilled my 12-year-old
while I was nearly in a coma.”
— A Mother Taken by Ambulance While Her Children Were Traumatised by the State

This formal letter from Polly Chromatic to attorney Mark Fulford outlines a devastating series of human rights violations following a medical emergency on 14–15 October 2021. While Polly was suffering a life-threatening asthma attack, social workers and police used her absence to invade her home, interrogate her children, insult her husband, and threaten family separation.

🧬 I. A Medical Crisis, Not a Crime Scene

Noelle, in severe respiratory distress, was taken by ambulance after nebuliser treatments failed
Police arrived without masks, asking irrelevant questions about food while she was unable to breathe
Children watched in horror as their mother was stretchered away

🧑‍👦 II. What the State Did to Her Family

Called her children "orphans" while she was alive and receiving care
Referred to the father as unfit, despite his intellectual disability and efforts to cooperate
Searched the house without permission, with no adult present
Removed children and forced them to ride alone with a social worker without explanation
Fed them allergens, worsening their asthma
Asked irrelevant, psychological questions like:
- “Do you bathe?”
- “Do you like your mom?”
- “Do you like being homeschooled?”
All this while failing to ask if they were okay or offer any reassurance

🚫 III. Abuse of Power Under Medical Pretext

“They forced their way into my hospital room. They violated every boundary. And they tried to turn a crisis into a case.”

The social worker and officers treated the kitchen counter — not the emergency — as the priority.
Rather than assist, they chose to investigate, punish, and traumatise.

⚖️ IV. What Noelle Demands

Restraining order against the Department of Social Development
Compensation for years of state-inflicted trauma
Legal action against both the social worker (Miss Godet) and police (Officer Taylor and others)
Public accountability for the violation of medical ethics, legal rights, and child protection principles

SWANK Summary:

She couldn’t breathe.
They couldn’t care.

She was fighting for her life.
They were planning how to punish her for surviving.

You Broke the Lockdown, Then Blamed My Compost Toilet

🏡 SWANK Dispatch: Pandemic Protocols Are Not Optional—Even for the State

🗓️ 26 March 2020

Filed Under: covid regulation breach, emergency powers violation, unauthorised home entry, high-risk health exposure, environmental complaint, disrespectful visit, asthma risk ignored, government misconduct

“We were in the middle of eating lunch during a pandemic.
You entered anyway.
Unmasked. Uninvited. Unjustified.”
— A Mother Filing a COVID-Era Environmental Complaint

This letter from Polly Chromatic to Mr. Kendrick Neely at the Environmental Health Department is a formally composed yet seething account of a government visit that violated the law, her body, and her family’s safety.

The visit, conducted by social workers, was unannounced and intrusive — taking place on the very day the Emergency Powers (COVID-19) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into force.

⚖️ I. The Regulations Say: Stay Out

According to law:

Only essential workers could leave home
Social distancing was required
Visits had to be limited to urgent, essential duties
ID had to be shown
No entry to private homes was permitted except by health officers under lawful process

None of these conditions were met.

Instead:

Two unmasked women entered her home
They stood less than six feet from her and her children
They arrived while the family was eating, maximising viral exposure
They ignored her explicit verbal refusal

🌡️ II. What Was at Stake

• Polly is clinically vulnerable with severe asthma
• Her home was the only controlled airspace she had
• She was trying to protect four small children during a global health crisis
• The state showed up anyway — and treated her caution as defiance

“They are supposed to be protecting my children.
Instead, they put them at risk.”

🌍 III. The Department’s Own Mission Statement

The Environmental Health Department claims it is devoted to:

“assess, maintain, and improve the health and safety of the environment and residents.”

So why was Polly left to enforce public health law alone, against government staff?

I Had to Write the Constitution Back to the People Who Forgot It

📜 SWANK Dispatch: When Human Rights Must Be Petitioned to Protect Children from the State

🗓️ 15 July 2020

Filed Under: human rights petition, social work abuse, illegal medical examination, lawful homeschooling, systemic trauma, constitutional breach, public health endangerment, procedural failure, retaliation for complaints

“You have not treated us fairly. You have not protected our lives.
You have broken the law, and called it care.”
— A Mother Who Petitioned the Human Rights Commission with a Timeline Longer Than the Pandemic

In this ten-page letter to the Human Rights Commission, Polly Chromatic lays bare 3.5 years of sustained abuse by the Department of Social Development, escalating from unwanted visits to medical assault — all under the guise of safeguarding. With statutes cited, timelines presented, and health risks documented, this is not a complaint.
It is an indictment.

🧾 I. The Legal Core

Section 17(6) of the Children (Care and Protection) Ordinance, 2015
States that parents must receive a written report of any investigation.

Status: Not once. Not ever.

Emergency Powers (COVID-19) Regulations, 2020
Restricted entry into private residences except under clear emergency or essential worker capacity, with ID.

Status: Breached on 26 March 2020.

Education Ordinance, 2009
Recognises homeschool as a valid educational path with Ministerial approval.

Status: Approval granted — then ignored by every other department.

⚠️ II. Documented Harms

Sexual assault of her sons during forced hospital exams in front of 9 adults (2017)
Repeated home invasions, including fence removal (2019)
Property defacement, neighbour violence, and threats
Medical instructions from a doctor contradicting UK NHS guidance
Emotional abuse, gaslighting, and repeated interruptions of homeschooling

All while suffering from severe eosinophilic asthma — a condition that makes every uninvited visit a potential death sentence.

📅 III. The Timeline of Lawbreaking

2016–2020: Dozens of interventions, no reports
2017: Approval to homeschool granted by Mark Garland
2017–2020: Truancy threats continue regardless
2020: COVID violations escalate with visits during lockdown

“They questioned my compost toilet.
They never questioned whether their actions were lawful.”

🧠 IV. Fundamental Rights Violated

🛑 Right to Life
🛑 Protection from Inhuman Treatment
🛑 Right to Private and Family Life
🛑 Protection of Religion, Conscience, and Health Standards
🛑 Right to Education
🛑 Protection from Discrimination
🛑 Lawful Administrative Action

This isn’t accidental.
This is a pattern of procedural contempt.

They Called It Engagement. We Call It Exhibit A.

⟡ A Timeline of Polite Coercion: RBKC and the Art of Institutional Smothering ⟡

Filed: 17 November 2022
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/2022-TIMELINE-WEDGEBULL
📎 Download PDF – 2022-11-17_SWANK_RBKC_ChildWelfareTimeline_EWedgeBull_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf

I. Welcome to Politeness as Policy

This document is not an email thread.
It is a procedural novella written in faux-concern and administrative breathlessness.
Its cast includes:

Eric Wedge-Bull, Advanced Practitioner and patron saint of overfriendly pressure
Milena Abdula-Gomes, social work student and uninvited houseguest-in-waiting
Annabelle Kapoor, headteacher turned emotional hostage negotiator

Across 22 pages of timestamped theatre, a pattern emerges:

“Take care” means: we’re watching
“Just checking in” means: why won’t you comply?
“Warmest regards” means: we’re escalating

II. The Misuse of Courtesy as Institutional Disguise

RBKC’s Family Services wrote repeatedly, empathetically, and endlessly:

After you were hospitalised
While you were breathless
In breach of your disability adjustments
And with zero procedural basis for involvement

They were not protecting children.
They were protecting a narrative — one in which you were fragile, unpredictable, and needing to be monitored.

This timeline logs every act of rhetorical smothering:
The false empathy.
The deliberate misreading of refusal as confusion.
The staged offers of “support” which were, in fact, soft surveillance.

III. Why SWANK Filed This

Because polite retaliation is still retaliation.
Because “supportive tone” does not override unlawful contact.
Because no one should be pressured into verbal contact while recovering from medical harm, just to pacify institutional insecurity.

This timeline was published not because it’s unusual — but because it is exactly how safeguarding misuse sounds.

Read it. Then ask:
If it wasn’t misconduct — why does it need so much charm?

IV. Filing Notes

Communication adjustment ignored
Health status repeatedly downplayed
Multiple unlawful home visit attempts
Emotional manipulation masked as “relationship-building”
False representation of consent to meetings
Written requests converted into verbal coercion

Let the record show:

This is what it looks like before the supervision order arrives.
This is how institutions behave before retaliation becomes formal.
This is how they write — when they still think you’ll never publish.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion