“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Chromatic v. Kalisa (Narrative Reversal via Threat Memo)


🪞SWANK London Ltd

WITNESS INTIMIDATION & SECURITY RETALIATION – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Douglas Kalisa, Security Officer, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-DK-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_DouglasKalisa_WitnessIntimidation.pdf
Summary:
SWANK files a private criminal prosecution against hospital security officer Douglas Kalisa for retaliatory conduct, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice following a racially aggravated attack at St Thomas' Hospital.

I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic was verbally attacked by a black female patient at St Thomas’ Hospital while attending A&E in respiratory distress, accompanied by her minor (mixed-race) daughter. Despite being the victim of the attack — and medically compromised — she was denied treatment, subjected to a false safeguarding referral, and later blamed for the incident by hospital security.

Douglas Kalisa, acting in his capacity as security officer, later issued a written letter which:

  • Misrepresented the nature of the January 2 incident

  • Omitted all reference to the original attack against the claimant

  • Threatened or implied blame in a manner likely to suppress further reporting

This letter, delivered weeks later, constituted not just a procedural error — but a retaliatory act against a mother who had the temerity to speak up. The CPS later escalated a criminal case against her. CCTV footage was never retrieved. Treatment was never provided. Her children were later taken.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This Laying of Information, filed under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, includes the following allegations:

  • Witness Intimidation

  • Perverting the Course of Justice

  • Harassment with Institutional Impact

  • Collusion in Safeguarding Retaliation

The retaliatory letter authored by Mr. Kalisa is now formally submitted as evidence — alongside the medical timeline, safeguarding fallout, and police complaint filed on 8 April 2024.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because victims of racial abuse should not receive threats on letterhead.
Because mothers in respiratory crisis should not be followed home by police after being denied care.
Because when hospital security aligns itself with false safeguarding narratives, the result is not order — it is medical authoritarianism, and it leaves children in danger.

This was not protection. This was punishment.

IV. Violations

  • Issuance of retaliatory correspondence after institutional misconduct

  • Suppression of police report context (Ref: TAA-15934-24-0101-IR)

  • Failure to disclose CCTV footage from the incident site

  • Contribution to subsequent medical and family breakdown via written intimidation

V. SWANK’s Position

Mr. Kalisa’s actions were neither neutral nor bureaucratic. They were charged, calculated, and designed to intimidate. He did not just ignore the assault — he authored its official reversal.

This prosecution marks the beginning of formal accountability for all those who tried to rewrite reality in a hospital hallway. Your badge does not shield you from justice. Your clipboard does not erase causality.

When the mother gasped for breath, the system chose to stifle her voice instead.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.