A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 GSTT (PC-122): On the Invention of a Security Incident


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – GUY’S & ST THOMAS’ NHS FOUNDATION TRUST ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/GSTT-DISABILITY-DISCRIMINATION-01
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-122_GSTT_DisabilityDiscriminationFalseSecurityReport.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint issued to Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust concerning the false security report and discriminatory treatment of a disabled patient (Polly Chromatic) during a respiratory emergency at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E on 2 January 2024. The complaint demands record correction, investigation, and reform of Trust protocols for disabled patients experiencing acute medical crises.

I. What Happened

During a severe asthma episode on 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ A&E accompanied by her young daughter.

Despite visible respiratory distress and medical vulnerability, a nurse continued repetitive verbal questioning, disregarding her inability to speak during an active asthma attack.

This interaction caused acute physical risk and emotional trauma, compelling her to voluntarily leave the department to safeguard her own health and that of her child.

Weeks later, internal documentation falsely alleged she had been “removed by security”, converting an act of self-preservation into a narrative of disorder — a classic institutional rewriting of the disabled patient’s experience.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That medical staff failed to apply reasonable adjustments for a communication-related disability.
• That a false report was entered, alleging security involvement where none occurred.
• That the hospital’s internal systems reinforced a narrative of blame to conceal clinical negligence.
• That such falsification constitutes disability discrimination and reputational harm under statutory law.
• That the complaint represents an act of legal reclamation — the patient repossessing her own story from bureaucracy’s mouth.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To expose the NHS’s pattern of rewriting patient behaviour to obscure discrimination.
• To demand record correction and the re-establishment of factual accuracy as a human right.
• To connect this incident to broader institutional retaliation following lawful medical and safeguarding complaints.
• Because dignity, once taken from the patient, must be refiled in the public record.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Domestic Law
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15, 19, 20 — discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Data Protection Act 2018 — accuracy obligations under s.171.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14 — protection from degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination.

Clinical & Ethical Codes
• NHS Constitution — respect, dignity, and patient voice.
• GMC Good Medical Practice — communication and safeguarding duties.
• Nursing & Midwifery Council Code (2018) — obligation to treat patients with dignity and respect.

Regulatory Oversight
• Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)
• Care Quality Commission (CQC)
• NHS Resolution

V. SWANK’s Position

“To falsify a medical record is to commit a quiet act of violence — bureaucracy’s way of rewriting pain into paperwork.”

SWANK London Ltd. asserts that Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust participated in the administrative conversion of disability into disorder, fabricating a narrative of removal to mask discrimination.

The hospital’s failure to uphold its ethical duties not only endangered a patient’s life but criminalised her symptoms.

This complaint therefore functions as both a request for investigation and a public affidavit: testimony transcribed in gold rather than apology written in ink.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And revisionism deserves record.

⚖️ 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.