When Hospitals Harm: How GSTT Weaponised Silence, Safeguarding & Non-Response

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-02–PHSO–GSTT-INDECENT-PROTRACTED
Filed Under: NHS Delays, Disability Dismissals & Safeguarding Farce
From: Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 2 June 2025

💼 Subject:

Formal Escalation – Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Unresolved Complaint, Retaliatory Safeguarding & Clinical Incompetence

Dear Sir or Madam,

What follows is not a fresh complaint, but the remains of one—left to rot in the inboxes of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, untouched, unanswered, and untreated for over twelve weeks.

On 10 March 2025, I submitted a complaint concerning two medical incidents at St Thomas’ Hospital (4 November 2024 & 2 January 2025). Since then, the Trust has responded with prolonged silence—a delay not merely inconsiderate but procedurally unconscionable.

I now formally request that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman intervene, as the Trust appears unwilling or unable to locate its statutory obligations, let alone fulfil them.

🩺 Summary of Malpractice and Mayhem:

On both occasions, I arrived in respiratory distress (eosinophilic asthma).
I was denied proper treatment, and reasonable adjustments were pointedly refused—despite diagnosed communication disabilities (vocal cord dysfunction and muscle tension dysphonia).
My repeated, lawful requests for written communication were ignored, as if decorum were optional.
The Trust retaliated with a safeguarding referral so baseless it collapsed into farce, culminating in police interference at our hotel and harm to my children.

This sequence of events—a collision of incompetence, arrogance, and contempt—amounts to:

A breach of the Equality Act 2010
A direct affront to the NHS Constitution
And a clear failure to offer dignified, accessible, or lawful care

📎 Documentation (For Those Who Read):

I enclose my Written Communication Statement, which outlines the statutory basis and medical rationale for written-only engagement. It is also available online, for the benefit of institutions with a penchant for misplacing attachments:
🔗 Written Communication Statement

🕯 The Ask (Since It Must Be Spelled Out):

That the PHSO accept and investigate this complaint as a matter of urgency
That the Trust’s inertia and misconduct be examined for what they are: calculated institutional dereliction

This submission is issued under the insignia of SWANK London Ltd., a documentation authority intolerant of administrative melodrama masquerading as governance.

Yours in barbed civility,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🩺 NHS No: 6666666666
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

Justice Denied by Design: The Crown Court's Refusal to Accommodate Disability

🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-05-18–PHSO–CROWN-INACCESSIBLE
Filed Under: Due Process Derailed · Legal Theatre of Cruelty · Digital Ableism Chronicles

TO:
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Casework Team

FROM:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
🗓 18 May 2025

💼 SUBJECT:

Complaint – Inner London Crown Court & HMCTS

Refusal of Lawful Disability Adjustments
Where Justice Wears a Wig and Ignores the Equality Act

Dear Casework Custodians,

Let us dispense with the theatre of diplomacy: I am writing to report what can only be described as a systemic farce—wherein His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Inner London Crown Court have treated disability legislation as optional décor.

Despite:

Repeated written requests,
Lawful clinical evidence (Rafiq Report, 26 November 2024),
And the foundational principles of equal access to justice,

…I was:

❌ Denied my medically essential written-only communication adjustment
🎭 Pressured to appear in person and engage in verbal contact, despite documented risk
🧾 Ignored in clear violation of Sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010
🧠 Subjected to psychological harm, procedural disadvantage, and discriminatory exclusion
⚖️ Denied access to justice—not by accident, but by repeated institutional neglect

🏛 What I Did (To Be Ignored in Style):

I submitted formal complaints to:

The Inner London Crown Court
HMCTS
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO)

All responded with resounding administrative nothingness. The performance of legality was maintained. The substance of justice was not.

🕯 What I Require:

That the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman conduct a full investigation into:

This pattern of disability discrimination
The operational and legal failures involved
The violations of my human rights under both domestic and international law

✒ Communication Protocol:

Correspondence must be in writing only. This is not negotiable. It is:

🩺 Clinically mandated
📜 Statutorily protected
📌 Previously ignored at cost

Consider this letter not merely a complaint, but a documented refusal to be silently excluded from the very system meant to uphold the rule of law.

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

Email Threat of Supervision Order – Procedural Retaliation by Kirsty Hornal (WCC) | 31 May 2025

📮 Dispatch: Supervision by Threat

Subject: Kirsty Hornal’s Email of 31 May 2025
Filed Under: Procedural Retaliation, Email Harassment, Disability Discrimination

🕯 Summary:

On 31 May 2025, Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services issued a strikingly unprofessional communication declaring that Westminster Council was “applying to court for a supervision order.”

Not via legal service.
Not via formal case proceedings.
But via email. Casual. Unsanctioned. And profoundly coercive.

🎭 This Was Not Safeguarding. This Was Threat Theatre.

1. Retaliation, Thinly Veiled

At the time of this email, the recipient — Director of SWANK London Ltd. — had a live N1 claim against Westminster City Council and affiliated public bodies.

Hornal’s statement appears surgically timed to:

Intimidate the claimant during active legal action
Punish refusal to submit to informal CIN procedures
Preempt judicial or regulatory scrutiny by manufacturing a pseudo-crisis

This is not child protection. It is a procedural counter-attack.

2. Procedural Misconduct by Omission

A lawful application for a supervision order must be preceded by:

Multi-agency safeguarding discussions
Escalation through the Public Law Outline (PLO)
Clear, evidence-based risk thresholds

Ms Hornal bypassed all of this.
There was no lawful trigger.
Only retaliation — typed, sent, and CC’d.

3. Disability Discrimination (Weaponised)

The recipient has a documented written-only communication policy, grounded in medical evidence of:

Eosinophilic asthma
Muscle tension dysphonia
PTSD linked to state harassment

This email violated that adjustment, knowing it would destabilise the recipient.

To do so in the name of “child welfare” is a grotesque inversion of duty.

4. Breach of Legal and Professional Standards

The act violates multiple frameworks simultaneously:

Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding pathways
Equality Act 2010 – Disability adjustment ignored
Social Work England (SWE) Code of Ethics – Abuse of power
LGSCO Maladministration Standards – Procedural unfairness, lack of proportionality

5. A Documented Pattern

This is not an isolated episode.

Similar escalations have occurred precisely when:

Legal filings were made
Complaints were submitted
Medical boundaries were asserted

The evidence points to a systemic pattern of retaliatory safeguarding, well-documented in SWANK’s legal and police records.

📎 Concluding Position:

This is not “liaison.”
This is not “support.”
This is targeted coercion masquerading as child protection — emailed, unfiltered, and procedurally rotten.

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

They Used Safeguarding to Punish a Complaint. We Sent It to Television. — Channel 4 Has the File Now

⟡ Dispatches Tipped Off. State Retaliation Logged. TV Was Notified. ⟡

“A disabled mother filed lawful complaints. The state responded with safeguarding powers. Now Channel 4 knows.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MEDIA/DISPATCHES-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Dispatches_TipOff_DisabledFamily_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal tip submitted to Channel 4’s Dispatches, placing legal, medical, and regulatory evidence into the hands of national investigative journalism. Describes the coordinated abuse of safeguarding frameworks against a disabled family in lawful proceedings. The press has been briefed. The archive has logged it.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a documentary tip to Channel 4’s Dispatches team, outlining:

A pattern of multi-agency misconduct
The use of fabricated safeguarding concerns following civil complaints
Retaliation by police, NHS trusts, and social workers
A £23 million claim for legal damages, already filed
A press release enclosing statutory references and legal breaches

This tip is not an emotional disclosure — it is a forensic, jurisdictional act of witness.

II. What the Tip Establishes

That a major UK broadcaster has been placed on formal notice
That the evidence submitted includes medical, legal, and procedural documentation
That this case is not isolated — it mirrors national patterns of disability retaliation masked as care
That Channel 4 now holds recorded knowledge of the harm — and can no longer claim neutrality through ignorance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding is being used to retaliate.
Because the courts are slow, the regulators are silent, and the archive can’t wait.

Because once the story is told,
They’ll say no one knew.
They’ll say the press weren’t contacted.
They’ll say the public never saw.

So SWANK shows them:
The press were told.
The documents were sent.
And now the file lives online.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that TV must wait until after a tragedy.
We do not accept that evidence needs virality to deserve coverage.
We do not accept that a mother must choose between legal pursuit and her child’s protection.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the state targets us,
We target the narrative.
If the system hides it,
We submit it.
And if the story never airs,
We air it here — with a file name, a date stamp, and a jurisdictional receipt.

⟡ 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.

A Social Worker’s Sword: Misconduct, Discrimination, and the Art of Retaliation in Westminster

Referral to Social Work England

Regarding the Conduct of Ms Kirsty Hornal – Retaliatory Safeguarding, Disability Contempt, and Abuse of Registered Authority

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

2 June 2025

To:
Professional Standards Directorate
Social Work England
✉ enquiries@socialworkengland.org.uk

Subject: Formal Fitness to Practise Referral – Kirsty Hornal (Westminster Children’s Services)

Concerning Misuse of Safeguarding Powers, Procedural Malfeasance, and Discriminatory Conduct toward a Disabled Litigant

Dear Professional Standards Team,

I write, with the requisite exhaustion of one too frequently targeted by institutional disdain, to raise a formal referral against Ms Kirsty Hornal, social worker employed by Westminster City Council Children’s Services, whose recent conduct has pierced the boundaries of professional decency and landed squarely in the domain of coercive misconduct.

🕯 The Incident in Brief — Though Nothing About It Was Briefly Endured

On 31 May 2025, Ms Hornal issued me an unsolicited and aggressive email, stating that “the local authority is applying to court for a supervision order.” The communication was:

Unanchored in legal reality, risk evidence, or safeguarding protocol
Devoid of procedural grounding, and therefore gratuitously menacing
A retaliatory dispatch, sent in the midst of my civil claim against her employer
A flagrant disregard of my disability accommodations, which prohibit surprise escalations or verbal manoeuvrings
Delivered as if law were theatre, and I, its unwillingly cast antagonist

One does not need a law degree — though I have certainly acted as though I hold several — to see this was not safeguarding. It was retribution masquerading as duty.

⚖ Enumerated Breaches of Professional Standards

The following Professional Standards, issued by your own body, were treated by Ms Hornal as optional décor:

1.6 – Failing to treat me as an individual or to respect my legal and medical status
1.7 – Communicating in a manner that was neither appropriate, open, nor honest — unless one considers veiled threats a form of transparency
1.9 – Exploiting her statutory position to intimidate, not protect
2.2 – Collapsing the necessary boundary between professional role and personal vendetta
5.4 – Causing risk, not mitigating it; undermining confidence in social work as a domain of safeguarding rather than silencing

🎭 Context – Which She Cannot Claim to Have Missed

I am a disabled mother of four, managing complex PTSD and muscle tension dysphonia — conditions formally documented and acknowledged by Westminster multiple times. My written-only communication directive has been repeatedly submitted. Yet, Ms Hornal chose to escalate through litigation theatre without process, consultation, or lawful basis. Her actions are not merely improper — they are institutionally corrosive.

Police involvement (Ref: ROC10979-25-0101-IR) has been necessitated. That, in itself, is an indictment of this profession’s failure to police its own.

🗂 Documents Available for Your Review

Exhibit A: Ms Hornal’s email (31 May 2025)
Exhibit B: Communication directives and medical documentation
Exhibit C: Metropolitan Police report, filed 2 June 2025
Exhibit D: Civil litigation materials proving conflict of interest

🧾 Remedy Sought

I request, in the interests of public trust and professional integrity, that Social Work England initiate an immediate fitness to practise review. This is not a matter of “conflict resolution.” It is a matter of removing individuals who weaponise statutory authority for bureaucratic vengeance.

I trust that Social Work England wishes to be perceived not merely as a registration body, but as a guardian of ethical standards. Please do not let this one pass beneath the rug so many others have already vanished under.

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

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion