Refusal of CIN Visit – Medical Grounds, Legal Filings, and Police Reports | 22 May 2025

---

🛑 Formal Refusal of CIN Visit Request

A Declaration of Legal Non-Consent and Medical Prohibition

Issued: 22 May 2025
To: Mr Sam Brown & Ms Kirsty Hornal
Westminster Children’s Services

Subject: Disability Adjustment, Judicial Protections & Active Police Proceedings

---

✒️ Opening Rebuke

Dear Mr Brown and Ms Hornal,

Consider this your formal and final notice: I do not and cannot consent to any in-person visits, uninvited verbal engagements, or contact of any kind pertaining to your CIN involvement request.

Such approaches are:

• Medically contraindicated

• Legally impermissible

• Procedurally coercive and discriminatory

This communication constitutes a legal refusal underpinned by binding medical evidence and statutory protection. You are now on record.

---

🩺 Medical Standing – Non-Negotiable Adjustments

I am protected by formally diagnosed conditions, including:

• Eosinophilic Asthma – aggravated by stress and poor air quality

• Muscle Tension Dysphonia – rendering verbal communication functionally impossible

• Complex PTSD – specifically trauma-linked to institutional intrusion, including social services

These diagnoses are fully documented in the attached psychiatric assessment by Dr Irfan Rafiq (26 November 2024), which explicitly prescribes written-only communication as a reasonable and legally binding adjustment under UK disability law.

To ignore this is not a service error. It is discrimination with medical consequences.

---

⚖️ Judicial and Criminal Proceedings – Active and Escalating

You are not engaging with a "service user." You are attempting contact with a person who has initiated multiple police reports and civil actions against your department, including but not limited to:

📁 Police Reports on File:

• BCA-10622-25-0101-IR – Disability-based coercion (Ms Hornal)

• BCA-25130-25-0101-IR – Retaliatory safeguarding after protected disclosure

• BCA-25249-25-0101-IR – Sustained coercion, medical neglect, fabricated risk

• ROC-10237-25-0101-IR – Procedural harassment by Mr Brown

📜 Civil Filings in Motion:

• N1 Claim – Disability discrimination & safeguarding abuse

• N16A Injunction – Prohibiting procedural interference

• N461 Judicial Review – Legality of safeguarding escalation under challenge

Your insistence on CIN contact in this context is astonishingly reckless and legally indefensible.

---

🧾 Legal Position – Boundaries Now Formalised

Any further attempt to initiate:

• CIN visits

• Verbal or encrypted contact

• Telephone calls or unscheduled engagement

...shall be treated as:

• Harassment

• Breach of medical directive

• Violation of statutory rights under the Equality Act 2010, Data Protection Act 2018, and common law duties of care and proportionality

You are, by law, now barred from making contact outside permitted channels.

---

📫 Permitted Modes of Contact – Nothing More, Nothing Less

You may address me only via:

• ✉ Unencrypted email

• 📮 Postal letter (Royal Mail only – no couriers, no doorstep appearances)

All other contact methods — verbal, encrypted, or physical — are deemed unlawful and will be documented accordingly.

---

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

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 asthma, muscle 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.

---

Email Threat of Supervision Order from Westminster Children’s Services – 29 May 2025

---

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-WCC-Supervision-Threat

Filed Under: Retaliation by Email, Misuse of Procedure, Digital Coercion Series

Re: Ms Kirsty Hornal, Westminster Children’s Services
Subject Line: “Letter of Intent to Initiate Proceedings”
Date & Time of Offence: 29 May 2025, 11:14 BST

---

🎭 Threat Theatre, Act I: “Support and Assessment”

At precisely 11:14 on the morning of 29 May 2025, Ms Kirsty Hornal — Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services and repeat feature in our anthology of institutional misconduct — took it upon herself to author an electronic ultimatum, cunningly disguised as cooperative liaison.

Under the genteel veneer of “support and assessment,” Ms Hornal announced the Council’s alleged intention to pursue a Supervision Order over four named children: Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — an invocation so absurdly theatrical it could only be sincere in its threat.

The pretext? A letter “outlining concerns.”
The timing? Remarkably aligned with SWANK’s legal proceedings.
The delivery? Pastel and polite, but seething with bureaucratic menace.

---

🩺 Disability? What Disability.

A Written Communication Policy is, and has long been, in place.
It is formal, enforceable, and medically mandated.
Its terms? No unsolicited contact, no verbal engagements, no encrypted ambushes.
Its breach? A statutory violation.

Ms Hornal was well aware of this.
She emailed regardless.

What Westminster refers to as safeguarding now appears indistinguishable from systematic disregard for disabled protections.

---

📚 Interpretive Notes for the Archive – The Anatomy of a Threat

• The letter’s declaration of legal intent is procedurally anomalous, devoid of risk foundation, and unaccompanied by lawful process.

• The gratuitous naming of children — absent threshold or tribunal — functions as emotional leverage, not protection.

• The phrase “we will be seeking a supervision order” is delivered without basis, evidence, or necessity.

This is not safeguarding.
This is email as intimidation.
This is casework as vendetta, cloaked in the sanitised dialect of child protection bureaucracy.

Let the record show: safeguarding has become the state’s soft weapon, and email, its preferred projectile.

---

🖋 Filed By:

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

---

Coercive Threat by Email from Westminster Children’s Services – Kirsty Hornal, 31 May 2025

---

🕯 A Dispatch Concerning the Judicial Whimsy of Ms Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 31 May 2025
Category: Bureaucratic Threats via Email, Volume IV

---

🎭 Scene: The Inbox

On the thirty-first day of May, I — Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd. — was treated to a performance of low theatre from one Ms Kirsty Hornal, bureaucrat of Westminster Children’s Services.

The email in question, unsolicited and gallingly timed, proclaimed she would:

“liaise with legal teams”
and consider
“whether this needs to be taken to court.”

A curious choice of phrasing for a civil servant supposedly engaged in safeguarding — not posturing as a litigant-in-training.

---

🖋 Context (with Embarrassing Precision)

Let the record reflect:

• I have filed multiple police reports for harassment by Westminster social workers, including Ms Hornal.

• I maintain a legally issued Written Communication Policy — necessitated by disability and on record with the Council.

• This policy explicitly bars uninvited emails. Ms Hornal’s message was not just discourteous; it was unlawful.

---

💉 Consequence: Actual Harm

This missive, crafted in arrogance and dispatched in violation, triggered a PTSD episode and respiratory distress. This is not mere melodrama. It is documented injury.

---

⚖️ Legal & Logical Characterisation

This was not safeguarding. It was not “liaison.”
It was — by both spirit and structure — a coercive threat, dressed up in institutional lace. A bureaucratic attempt to frighten under the banner of “procedure.”

---

📂 Disposition

This incident is now formally recorded as part of an escalating dossier of retaliatory conduct, procedural misuse, and correspondence harassment by Westminster City Council.

The original email (with headers and metadata) is archived and may be produced upon lawful written request — not via phone, Teams, or carrier pigeon.

---

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

The Verbal Refusal of a Breathless Witness

 🖋 𝒮𝒲𝒜𝒩𝒦 Dispatch | 21 November 2024

“𝒩𝑜, 𝐼 𝒲𝑜𝓃’𝓉 𝒜𝓇𝑔𝓊𝑒. 𝐼’𝓁𝓁 𝒜𝓇𝒸𝒽𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝒴𝑜𝓊.”

Filed Under: Verbal Abuse, A&E Misconduct, NHS Deflection, Respiratory Retaliation, SWANK London Ltd

—

“I do not waste my time arguing with people.”

That sentence should be engraved in hospital corridors.

Not because I can’t argue,
but because I no longer perform for systems that weaponise disbelief.

“They either want to help or they don’t.”

And when they don’t?
I don’t escalate. I document.
Because a sovereign woman does not plead for what is hers by right.

“If they don’t want to help, I document it online and move on.”

That’s not passive.
That’s public record management.

“I cannot speak verbally to argue or explain things, period.”

Let me simplify for the NHS:
Verbal interaction is not a diagnostic requirement.
It’s a privileged assumption.

“They bully me every time we have a respiratory issue and don’t believe me.”

You call it triage.
We call it institutional gaslighting with a lanyard.

“My asthma is much worse now because of that ignorant doctor.”

So I won’t argue.
I’ll type. I’ll timestamp. I’ll make the archive louder than your excuses.

—

📍 Typed With Restraint. Published With Precision.
𝒫𝑜𝓁𝓁𝓎 𝒞𝒽𝓇𝑜𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒸, Oxygen Strategist, Institutional Historian

📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Escalations Digitised.

—

Labels: A&E bullying, asthma exacerbation, verbal ableism, refusal of care, safeguarding distortion, SWANK witness report

—

Search Description:
Mother refuses verbal conflict in A&E due to asthma. Documents NHS bullying and disbelief. Respiratory impact worsened. Institutional response recorded.