⟡ “A Sewer of Retaliation — Because Complaints Were Met with Contempt” ⟡
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OMBUDSMAN/DISABILITY-RETALIATION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_Formal_Complaint_PHSO_Disability_Discrimination_Procedural_Retaliation.pdf
Formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman detailing systemic discrimination, retaliatory safeguarding abuse, and deliberate procedural exclusion.
I. What Happened
On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.) submitted a formal written complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The submission documented coordinated misconduct by NHS Trusts, local authority safeguarding bodies, and the Metropolitan Police.
She reported:
Chronic negligent healthcare resulting in severe harm.
Discriminatory denial of treatment and accommodations, despite a confirmed disability.
Retaliatory weaponisation of safeguarding to punish formal complaints.
Procedural exclusion from a Family Court hearing at which an Interim Care Order was imposed without her presence or knowledge.
Deliberate obstruction and cover-up of an environmental hazard (sewer gas exposure) affecting her disabled children.
She requested that all communication be conducted in writing only due to medically substantiated PTSD.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
A multi-agency pattern of procedural retaliation for lawful complaints.
Breaches of statutory disability rights and Equality Act 2010 duties.
Exploitation of safeguarding powers as a tool of intimidation.
Erosion of procedural safeguards, culminating in the forced separation of a disabled mother and her four U.S. citizen children.
Systemic contempt for transparency and accountability obligations.
This was not a collection of isolated failures. It was an orchestrated debasement of process.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because the ombudsman is often treated as a ceremonial afterthought, an ill-lit antechamber where institutional failure is diluted to “service issues.”
Because no disabled parent should have to convert trauma into bureaucracy to be heard.
Because “safeguarding” without due process is not protection — it is reprisal.
Because archival clarity is the only antidote to bureaucratic erasure.
And because SWANK will not permit these events to vanish into the grey fog of procedural indifference.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21: Duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6: Right to a fair hearing.
Care Act 2014 — Section 1: Promotion of individual wellbeing.
NHS Constitution — Commitment to dignity, respect, and non-discrimination.
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not safeguarding.
⟡ This was retribution, branded as protection. ⟡
SWANK does not accept the normalisation of retaliatory safeguarding or the bureaucratic laundering of discrimination.
We will document every act of contempt. 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.
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.