“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

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal & Brown: The Police Were Informed. The Council Was Not Amused. ⟡


⟡ “We Filed a Police Report. They Filed It Under ‘Customer Relations.’” ⟡
Email submitting formal police report against Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown — forwarded to council complaints teams for the record

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/POLICE-REPORT-FILING
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Email_PoliceReport_HornalBrown_RetaliationAbuse.pdf
Email forwarding police report against two senior social workers for retaliation and harassment, sent to both borough complaint desks

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services complaint inboxes. Attached was a police report naming Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown for repeated, coordinated acts of institutional retaliation, harassment, and discriminatory conduct.

The submission was forwarded with no introduction, no hedging, and no apology. The subject line said it all:
“Police Report for Kirsty Hornal and Sam Brown.”

It was not a request for action. It was a declaration of record.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Abuse of safeguarding process for retaliatory purposes

  • Human impact: Institutional intrusion, legal destabilisation, and emotional harm to children

  • Power dynamics: Social work used as a mechanism of silencing — backed by management hierarchy

  • Institutional failure: A system so accustomed to complaint that it routes police reports to customer service

  • Unacceptable conduct: Normalising surveillance, discrediting resistance, retaliating against legal redress

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because submitting a police report against two public servants should not feel like forwarding a broadband complaint.
Because the public must see what the state refuses to name: that retaliation is operational, not accidental.
Because the council’s inbox is not neutral. It is strategic.
Because when you file a police report and no one calls you back, the archive becomes your hotline.

SWANK documented this not to inform the public — but to outlive the silence that followed.

IV. Violations

  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Sections 4A & 2 – harassment, alarm, and distress by public officials

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 26 & 27 – harassment and victimisation linked to disability and protected activity

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – discrimination, harm avoidance, and abuse of power

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – misuse of safeguarding powers to intimidate rather than protect

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that customer service desks are neutral when violence wears a lanyard.
We do not accept that “retaliation” is too dramatic a word when the pattern fits the law.
We do not accept that institutional violence must be polite to be disqualifying.

This was not a miscommunication. This was strategy.
And SWANK has now timestamped it.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

They Retaliated Under PLO — Now They Want a Home Visit for ‘Support’


⟡ “We’ve Retaliated Under PLO — Now Let’s Pretend It’s Just ‘Support’” ⟡
A legal dispute has been filed. The complaint has been logged. The retaliation is underway. But Westminster still wants to drop by — “just to help.”

Filed: 16 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/CIN-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-16_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CINVisitRequest_PostPLORetaliation.pdf
Email from Sam Brown (Westminster) requesting an in-home Child in Need visit — despite ongoing legal proceedings, regulatory complaints, and a history of procedural abuse under the Public Law Outline.

I. What Happened

On 16 May 2025, Sam Brown, Deputy Service Manager at Westminster, sent a politely composed but structurally coercive email proposing a “Child in Need” (CIN) visit. The message:

  • Acknowledges the family's active legal case — but insists the CIN process is “separate”

  • Softens statutory pressure into language about “support” and “keeping in touch”

  • Offers a single-date appointment with no option for written-only substitution

  • Completely ignores prior communication boundaries and emotional harm

  • Treats safeguarding oversight as an unchallenged default, rather than a legally-contested threat

The result is a strategic shift in tone — from formal PLO retaliation to smiling statutory re-entry.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • Westminster is attempting to repackage PLO-level interference as CIN-level concern

  • Procedural overreach is now cloaked in language of “care”

  • Legal conflict is being consciously compartmentalised to justify continued presence

  • Disability adjustments (e.g. written-only communication) are being bypassed via format change

  • The same officials under regulatory complaint are still attempting contact

III. Why SWANK Filed It

This is not collaboration. It is administrative gaslighting. A statutory body accused of misconduct, currently under active complaint and judicial review, does not get to rebrand its interference as neutral “contact.” The letter reveals that Westminster is not standing down — they are changing uniform.

SWANK archived this document to:

  • Prove that post-PLO safeguarding activity continued under new names and justifications

  • Show how state actors use CIN to reinvade families under investigation

  • Expose the institutional refusal to honour trauma, legal boundaries, or reasonable accommodations

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Sections 15, 20, 27 (disability discrimination, failure to adjust, victimisation)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (family life), Article 6 (fair hearing), Article 14 (non-discrimination)

  • Children Act 1989 – Section 17 (misuse of CIN for surveillance, not support)

  • UNCRC – Article 23 (disabled family rights), Article 16 (protection from intrusion)

  • Social Work England Standards – Ethical boundary violations, disregard of active complaints

V. SWANK’s Position

Westminster’s safeguarding tactics have evolved — but not improved. A coercive visit under CIN is no less harmful than one under PLO. If anything, it is more insidious: it arrives under the banner of care while continuing to deny lived experience, legal protection, and accountability.

SWANK London Ltd. calls for:

  • A moratorium on all in-person visits while legal and regulatory proceedings are active

  • Written-only communication reinstated and honoured

  • Investigation into CIN misuse as a backchannel for procedural retaliation

⟡ 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.
No comments:

⟡ Chromatic v Met Police: Midnight Isn’t Reasonable Adjustment ⟡


⟡ “The Police Came at 11PM. I Was Asleep. They Came Anyway.” ⟡
Email exchange documenting police visit to disabled mother’s home at night — and her formal objection to future in-person attendance

Filed: 14 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/METROPOLITAN/POLICE-VISIT-DISPUTE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-14_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_StatementObjection_DisabilityBoundary.pdf
Email requesting statement handover to avoid in-person visits, citing disability, homeschooling, and surveillance safeguards

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Polly Chromatic received a response from Detective Sergeant George Thorpe of the Metropolitan Police, confirming that PC Kirsty Russell was the investigating officer for her report. The reply followed Polly’s 12 April 2025 message raising serious concerns about an unannounced late-night police visit to her home, despite:

  • Her medically documented communication limitations

  • Her four children being asleep during home education hours

  • The existence of a pre-written statement to avoid verbal engagement

Polly politely requested that the statement be relayed to the attending officers and reiterated that, unless absolutely necessary, she does not consent to unplanned police visits due to medical, safety, and trauma-related reasons.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Failure to respect disability-based written communication adjustment; late-night visit without notice

  • Human impact: Trauma exposure, sleep disruption, and heightened anxiety in a disabled household under harassment watch

  • Power dynamics: Attempted forced verbal interaction despite clear documented limits

  • Institutional failure: Ignoring previous documentation, disability status, and safeguarding boundaries

  • Unacceptable conduct: Treating written statements as insufficient solely because they do not offer real-time compliance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should be woken up at 11pm by the state.
Because there is no policy justification for showing up unannounced at the home of a disabled mother of four — when a statement was already provided.
Because the system will not acknowledge that written statements are not avoidance — they are accommodation.
Because this email is not about the event. It is about the expectation: that disabled people should still speak.

This archive entry is an act of quiet defiance — the kind that only appears after the doorbell rings too many times.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments; disability discrimination in public service

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful intrusion into private life, especially during family rest hours

  • Code of Ethics – College of Policing, Standards 1 & 4 – respect for rights, integrity, and public trust

  • Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) – failure to anticipate and accommodate known disability needs

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that officers can knock at 11PM with no explanation.
We do not accept that trauma, disability, or documented boundaries can be ignored for administrative convenience.
We do not accept that presence is proof of protection.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was state intrusion, veiled in politeness, carried out in silence, and now filed with fury.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

⟡ Chromatic v Hornal: Fitness to Practise, Failure to Stop ⟡


⟡ “A Fitness to Practise Concern Shouldn’t Need a Trigger Warning.” ⟡
Submission to Social Work England citing sustained misconduct, refusal of accommodations, and statutory misuse by Kirsty Hornal

Filed: 1 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/FITNESS-TO-PRACTISE-HORNAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-01_SWANK_SWEConcern_KirstyHornal_FTPViolation.pdf
Email to SWE submitting formal FTP concern against Kirsty Hornal for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation

I. What Happened

On 1 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal Fitness to Practise concern to Social Work England, naming Kirsty Hornal of Westminster Children’s Services as a practitioner engaged in unethical conduct. The message cited:

  • Retaliatory escalation of safeguarding after legal filings

  • Failure to respect medically confirmed communication adjustments

  • Repeated contact attempts via inaccessible formats

  • Harassment through procedural pressure and fabricated urgency

The submission was sent directly to SWE and copied to Hornal herself — a direct act of jurisdictional assertion from a disabled parent subject to state interference.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Circumvention of lawful disability adjustments; baseless safeguarding escalation

  • Human impact: Respiratory strain, PTSD triggers, and threat-induced instability for the entire family

  • Power dynamics: Social worker bypassing medical documentation to force coercive compliance

  • Institutional failure: No internal redress pathway; escalation treated as default response to resistance

  • Unacceptable conduct: Defining protected behaviour (e.g. email-only requests, legal complaints) as neglectful or hostile

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this complaint was the baseline — and it should have been enough.
Because a Fitness to Practise process that requires multiple filings is already an indictment of the profession.
Because Kirsty Hornal was notified of this concern in real time — and chose to continue her conduct.
Because institutional violence often wears a badge of procedure — and this submission tore it off.

This post marks the beginning of a formal timeline: when a disabled mother sent the email that turned misconduct into record.

IV. Violations

  • Social Work England Professional Standards, 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 5.1 – respect, access, honesty, protection from harm

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – failure to accommodate; retaliatory treatment for protected acts

  • Children Act 1989, Section 17 – neglect of child welfare to enforce parental compliance

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 8 & 14 – disability-based interference in private and family life

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that safeguarding powers can be used to punish legal defiance.
We do not accept that “duty” overrides medical reality.
We do not accept that social workers can redefine resistance as risk.

This wasn’t just a complaint. It was a diagnosis — of professional decay, system rot, and personal vendetta masquerading as policy.

SWANK does not wait for institutional review. We publish our own.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

⟡ Chromatic v Children’s Services: When Retaliation Replaced Care ⟡


⟡ “Retaliation is Not a Service. Discrimination is Not a Strategy.” ⟡
Formal multi-agency complaint submitted to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services for systemic failure, disability abuse, and retaliation

Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/SYSTEMIC-FAILURE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-15_SWANK_Complaint_WestminsterRBKC_DisabilityRetaliationSystemicFailings.pdf
Complaint addressed to both boroughs outlining institutional retaliation, disability neglect, and safeguarding weaponisation

I. What Happened

On 15 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a joint complaint to Westminster and RBKC Children’s Services. The email, copied to Dr. Philip Reid and social worker Kirsty Hornal, attached a comprehensive record of medical, legal, and evidentiary failures by multiple professionals. The complaint identified a pattern of retaliation following:

  • Protected legal activity

  • Disability-related communication requests

  • Efforts to assert child rights and prevent medical harm

The documents submitted included NHS correspondence, PLO challenges, and social worker reports — laying bare the pattern of coordinated refusal to accommodate, respond, or de-escalate.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Procedural breaches: Ignoring written-only communication needs; retaliating against legal action; failure to apply child welfare principles

  • Human impact: Medical regression, psychological harm, loss of educational access, fear of home invasion

  • Power dynamics: Social work roles repurposed as surveillance and compliance enforcement

  • Institutional failure: Total collapse of accountability, checks, or even basic communication standards

  • Unacceptable conduct: Targeting a disabled mother and her children under the pretext of care

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because complaints should not be met with escalation.
Because safeguarding cannot be invoked against the very families it fails to safeguard.
Because retaliation is not an “internal matter” — it’s a jurisdictional breach.
Because Polly Chromatic made this clear: the pattern is no longer anecdotal — it’s administrative culture.

This entry was not written in anger. It was written in architectural grief.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20, 26, 27 – failure to adjust, harassment by refusal, victimisation by escalation

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 17 & 47 – misuse of risk frameworks; neglect of actual welfare needs

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – obstruction of due process; invasion of family privacy

  • Professional Conduct Codes – neglect of duties under SWE and local authority guidance

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t failure. It was structure.
We do not accept social work as a tool of punishment.
We do not accept medical vulnerability as an invitation for institutional punishment.
We do not accept safeguarding that treats parents as threats and records as weapons.

SWANK archives this complaint as a civil record of modern municipal abuse — documented with clarity, filed with jurisdictional precision.

⟡ 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.

No comments:

Documented Obsessions