⟡ JURISDICTION BREACH & MEDICAL NEGLECT – EVIDENCE BUNDLE ⟡
Filed: 11 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/MEDICAL-NEGLECT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-11_Core_PC-135_WCC-RBKC_JurisdictionBreach-MedicalNeglect_EvidenceBundle.pdf
Summary: A consolidated evidence bundle documenting Westminster City Council and RBKC’s systemic medical negligence, jurisdictional misconduct, and retaliatory safeguarding escalation following lawful audit service. This bundle forms the structural spine of the SWANK Medical Archive — the first full evidentiary anatomy of bureaucratic malpractice masquerading as care.
I. What Happened
After years of respiratory collapse, hospital misdiagnosis, and safeguarding misuse, Westminster and RBKC acted not as medical guardians but as curators of disbelief.
They ignored clinical documentation, delayed emergency responses, and reframed illness as fabrication.
By 2024–2025, their jurisdictional overreach culminated in retaliatory safeguarding precisely timed to follow lawful audits and equality disclosures.
The bundle includes:
St Thomas’ Emergency Department discharge (2 Nov 2023): oxygen at 44%, no treatment, no admission.
ENT and respiratory referrals (July–Aug 2024): dual diagnoses of Eosinophilic Asthma and Muscle Tension Dysphonia, formally acknowledged yet institutionally erased.
Audit correspondence (May–June 2025): local authority escalation under active investigation.
Jurisdiction breach letters (RBKC & Westminster): councils asserting false authority during active legal proceedings.
The evidence shows neglect not as omission but as ritual — a bureaucratic choreography rehearsed until it became belief.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That medical neglect and procedural retaliation occurred across two councils in direct sequence.
• That safeguarding powers were deployed as disciplinary tools to silence lawful complaint.
• That Westminster’s PLO escalation (29 May 2025) followed immediately after SWANK’s evidentiary audit request.
• That the pattern of denial—clinical, administrative, and emotional—is the system’s signature, not its accident.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To unify medical, legal, and procedural evidence into a single prosecutorial archive.
• To record jurisdictional misconduct by local authorities acting outside lawful remit.
• To demonstrate that neglect has an aesthetic: repetitive, rehearsed, bureaucratically beautiful — and therefore admissible.
• Because once evidence achieves elegance, denial becomes ridiculous.
IV. Legal and Ethical Violations
Domestic Law:
• Children Act 1989 – breach of welfare and medical continuity duties.
• Equality Act 2010 – discrimination and denial of accommodation for disability.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – mishandling of medical records and misuse of safeguarding data.
• Human Rights Act 1998 – violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 (degrading treatment, denial of process, interference with family life, discrimination).
International Instruments:
• UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) – Articles 5, 7, and 13.
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) – Article 36 (failure to notify U.S. authorities of dual-citizen child seizure).
Regulatory Frameworks:
• Social Work England Standards (2021) – breach of integrity, proportionality, and boundary principles.
• GMC Good Medical Practice – systemic noncompliance with continuity-of-care obligations.
V. SWANK’s Position
“Neglect is not the absence of care — it is the presence of bureaucracy.”
SWANK London Ltd. holds that Westminster and RBKC converted lawful oversight into retaliatory theatre.
Their safeguarding conduct, framed as protection, in fact represents a structured evasion of accountability, perfected through repetition and paper.
This bundle is therefore both indictment and requiem: the administrative scripture of harm.
The councils called it safeguarding.
SWANK calls it documented negligence in ceremonial format.
⟡ 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 neglect deserves exposure.
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.