“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
Showing posts with label £2.1M claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label £2.1M claim. Show all posts

£2.1 Million in Damages for One Doctor’s Shrug


⟡ The Professor Who Let Me Suffocate ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/BRANLEY-NEGLIGENCE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_ProfHowardBranley_RespiratoryNegligence_DisabilityDismissal_£2.1MClaim.pdf

I. £2.1 Million in Damages for One Doctor’s Shrug

This formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) documents the clinical negligence of Professor Howard Branley, a consultant respiratory physician who:

  • Ignored documented diagnoses of Eosinophilic Asthma

  • Failed to respond to repeated episodes of respiratory collapse

  • Refused to initiate safeguarding referrals after observing abuse markers

  • Breached ethical duty by erasing disability evidence at the point of care

His silence became a ventilatory risk.
His prestige became his alibi.

II. The Clinic Was a Courtroom. He Withheld the Defence.

Professor Branley’s actions included:

  • Withholding diagnoses despite clinical evidence

  • Mischaracterising a patient with known PTSD and dysphonia

  • Failing to protect a child present during critical appointments

  • Issuing no follow-up plan despite acute respiratory dysfunction

This was not forgetfulness.
This was procedural euthanasia of care — dressed in NHS letterhead.

He chose to believe policy over pulse oximetry.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability dismissal is not just medical error — it is a civil harm with clinical fingerprints.
Because when elite doctors enable procedural abuse through omission, litigation is the only second opinion that counts.
Because gaslighting a respiratory collapse is not a metaphor — it’s a claimable event.

Let the record show:

  • The negligence was recorded

  • The child witnessed it

  • The evidence was preserved

  • And SWANK — filed it with statutory demand and monetary notation

This wasn’t a missed referral.
It was medical abandonment in silk tie and consultant tone.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit medical hierarchies to override duty of care.
We do not accept diagnostic omission as a form of plausible deniability.
We do not believe that a professor’s letterhead justifies silence.

Let the record show:

The patient was disabled.
The child was endangered.
The doctor was informed.
And SWANK — filed for £2.1 million.

This isn’t a clinical error.
It’s a valuation of institutional failure — costed, formatted, and notarised.




No comments:

They Called Social Services. I Filed for £2.1 Million.


⟡ The School Bruised My Son, Then Blamed Me ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFSTED/DRAYTON-PARK-FAILURE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_Ofsted_Evidence_DraytonPark_SafeguardingRetaliation_DisabilityAbuse_£2.1MClaim.pdf

I. They Called Social Services. I Filed for £2.1 Million.

This evidentiary submission to Ofsted documents:

  • Unlawful safeguarding escalation

  • Injury to a disabled child on school grounds

  • Institutional retaliation for lawful parental refusal

  • Misconduct during a borough handover

  • Willful dismissal of written communication adjustments

The injury was physical.
The escalation was political.
The response was procedural vengeance disguised as duty.

The bruise faded. The retaliation escalated. The file — does not forget.

II. Educational Negligence Masquerading as Concern

Drayton Park School:

  • Failed to notify the parent before calling social care

  • Acted on speculation, not safeguarding thresholds

  • Retaliated after lawful withdrawal of a sibling

  • Ignored known disability adjustments

  • And coordinated with borough agencies in silence, not transparency

This wasn’t a safeguarding referral.
It was educational sabotage under pastel stationery.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because bruises heal, but procedural defamation lingers.
Because parents with lawful adjustments are not risky — they are inconvenient.
Because calling social services to punish maternal sovereignty is state-enabled coercion.

Let the record show:

  • The child was injured

  • The mother was silenced

  • The borough transition was weaponised

  • And SWANK — filed the invoice, the evidence, and the public archive

This isn’t a misunderstanding.
It’s an administrative assault — dressed in safeguarding lingo.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not allow schools to use social services as disciplinary tools.
We do not permit retaliatory referrals masked as concern.
We do not let safeguarding misuse escape valuation.

Let the record show:

The school caused harm.
The agencies escalated it.
The parent documented it.
And SWANK — filed for £2.1 million.

This isn’t a complaint.
It’s a pedagogical indictment, typed in witness formatting.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions