⟡ Ethical Complaint Filed Against Dr Philip Reid (Pembridge Villas Surgery) ⟡
“We don’t call it a GP relationship. We call it medical misconduct, politely submitted to the profession’s ethics desk.”
Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/BMA/ETHICS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_BMA_EthicalComplaint_DrPhilipReid_PembridgeVillas.pdf
A formal ethical complaint submitted to the British Medical Association regarding Dr. Philip Reid’s conduct at Pembridge Villas Surgery. Allegations include disability discrimination, safeguarding collusion, and failure to uphold the ethical standards of medical care for a disabled patient and her children.
I. What Happened
On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic, on behalf of Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, submitted an ethical complaint to the British Medical Association (BMA) regarding:
Denial of a legally mandated written-only medical adjustment
Misrepresentation of medical facts in the patient record
Refusal to acknowledge or act on asthma and voice-related clinical needs
Complicity in triggering a retaliatory safeguarding response
Ethical dereliction under the General Medical Council's Duties of a Doctor and the BMA’s professional code
The complaint is linked to:
Ongoing filings to GMC, ICB, CQC, and PHSO
A live Judicial Review and civil claim for £23 million
SWANK’s public archive documenting systemic retaliation
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the BMA has been placed on notice regarding ethical breaches by a practicing GP
That primary care was used as a mechanism of control, not support
That the ethical foundation of the doctor-patient relationship was structurally ignored
That this was not a failure of understanding — it was a refusal to care
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because ethics aren’t abstract when harm is bodily.
Because silence in the face of adjustment requests is not neutrality — it’s alignment with abuse.
Because professional bodies must choose: protect patients or protect reputations.
This isn’t about an apology.
It’s about accountability.
And if ethics are just a PR function,
We document that too.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept ethical guidance as optional.
We do not accept “clinical discretion” when it violates rights.
We do not accept that a GP may collude in retaliation and keep their honour intact.
SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If ethics were breached,
We name the breach.
If the profession won’t correct its own,
We file the misconduct publicly.
And if care collapses into complicity,
We preserve the moment it became visible.
⟡ 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.