⟡ They Bullied Me at the Hospital. Then Filed a Report About Me. So I Filed One About Them. ⟡
“They told me to use the complaints process. I used the internet.”
Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS-MPS/EMAILS-11
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailComplaint_MetPolice_NHSBullying_ReportDeflection_PublicDisclosure.pdf
Formal statement to the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Children’s Services, and NHS staff responding to retaliatory complaint practices by hospital authorities and the refusal of police to act.
I. What Happened
On 21 November 2024, the parent filed a statement with the Metropolitan Police documenting:
Sustained bullying and harassment from NHS hospital staff
The pattern of hospitals filing reports against her only when she refuses to accept mistreatment
The refusal of the police to investigate or act, citing the matter as “civil”
Her explicit refusal to engage with institutional complaints procedures designed to silence abuse
Her decision to archive, publish, and escalate the pattern through SWANK and public record channels
The message was also sent to social worker Kirsty Hornal, NHS GP Dr Philip Reid, and legal representatives. The subject line was crystal clear: “Now you have the truth.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the NHS has repeatedly retaliated against a disabled parent via safeguarding escalation when challenged
That hospital staff used internal reporting to weaponise professional standing rather than provide care
That the Metropolitan Police refused to act, advising the parent to “speak to PALS”
That the parent rejected internal complaints systems as futile and chose transparency instead
That safeguarding escalation continues to function as reputational control, not protection
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when the same hospital that dismissed your oxygen crisis tries to call the police on you for defending your child,
you’re not in a healthcare setting —
you’re in an institutional theatre.
Because when the police tell you it’s not criminal to be bullied by doctors,
they’re not protecting the public — they’re preserving the hierarchy.
And because when the system tells you to file a complaint,
but never responds to one,
you stop playing their game —
and start building your own archive.
IV. Violations
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, and 8
Psychological harm from institutional retaliation; denial of remedy and due processEquality Act 2010 – Section 27
Victimisation after asserting disability rightsCare Act 2014 – Duty of Safeguarding
Misuse of safeguarding escalation in response to protected disclosureFreedom of Expression – ECHR Article 10
Protected right to document, share, and publish public interest records outside institutional complaint loops
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a complaint.
It was a declaration of refusal.
This wasn’t about being heard.
It was about being recorded.
They wanted a form.
We gave them a file.
They wanted silence.
We gave them SWANK.
⟡ 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:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.