“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

Showing posts with label Disability Impact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disability Impact. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v NHS: Clinical Letter Requested to Confirm Psychological Harm After Child Removal


⟡ “My Children Were Taken. I Asked My Doctor for a Letter. That, Too, Will Now Be Filed.” ⟡
When Clinical Reality Meets Institutional Fantasy, Only One Side Brings Medical Records.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/CLINICAL-IMPACT-LETTER-REQUEST
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Request_NHS_ClinicalLetter_ChildRemovalMentalHealthImpact.pdf
Formal written request to NHS consultant Philip Reid for a clinical support letter confirming psychological deterioration and disability impact following the state-forced removal of four children.

I. What Happened

In the early hours of 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a written clinical request to Dr. Philip Reid (NHS) regarding the acute medical consequences of her children’s removal by Westminster Children’s Services. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were taken without notice, accommodations, or medical coordination on 23 June 2025. This letter formally requests medical acknowledgment of exacerbated PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and Eosinophilic Asthma, alongside the clinical impact of forced separation.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • The removal of children caused immediate clinical deterioration

  • Ongoing legal proceedings require medical confirmation of harm

  • Communication access needs (written-only directives) remain active and violated

  • Emotional stability is now conditioned on reunification

  • The NHS is requested to confirm what the archive has already documented: this removal is not only legal — it is medical

This wasn’t parenting under strain. It was clinical harm triggered by institutional force.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because clinical collapse is not a footnote — it’s a jurisdictional event.
Because this isn’t a health scare. It’s health sabotage with paperwork.
Because medical records don’t lie, even when social workers do.
Because if the NHS responds, it confirms state harm.
And if it doesn’t, that silence will be filed next.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Failure to accommodate known medical and communication disabilities

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, 8 – Inhumane treatment, denial of access, violation of private/family life

  • UNCRPD Articles 13 & 25 – Denial of accessible healthcare and protective intervention for disabled litigants

  • NHS Duty of Care – Emotional and respiratory health jeopardised by state actions without coordination

  • Family Procedure Rules – Exclusion of medical context in family intervention planning

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a parental reaction. It was a medical emergency caused by legal misconduct.
This wasn’t a family matter. It was a collapse in breathing, voice, and psychological integrity.
This wasn’t a request for help. It was a request for documentation — because we already knew the answer.

SWANK hereby logs this letter as a formal evidentiary request.
Not because the court demanded it.
But because our lungs did.

⟡ 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.


No comments:

You Were Warned. You Just Chose Not to Act.


⟡ She Filed the Lawsuit. Then She Filed This Email. ⟡
When they said “we weren’t informed,” she published the proof — with timestamps.

Filed: 24 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULTI/EMAIL-15
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-24_SWANK_Email_MultiDefendants_N1ClaimNotice_DisabilityImpact.pdf
An email sent to legal firms, council officers, safeguarding leads, and NHS staff — formally notifying all parties of the submitted N1 civil claim while documenting the physical health damage caused by Westminster’s harassment. They cannot now say they didn’t know.

I. What Happened

On 24 February 2025, the parent made it official.
The N1 Claim Form had been submitted.
She emailed every relevant party — Westminster, RBKC, NHS, solicitors, and safeguarding reps.
She attached the form. She logged the health damage.
She named names. She requested clinical escalation.
And then, she filed this letter — not for help, but for record.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That the N1 legal claim was actively filed and served via formal notice

  • That multiple institutional actors were directly copied, including lawyers and doctors

  • That the retaliatory effects of a social worker visit caused worsened disability symptoms

  • That medical corroboration (via Dr Rafiq) was requested for legal purposes

  • That all parties were on notice — before escalation

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because lawsuits don’t just start in court — they start in inboxes.
Because “we didn’t know” is the first lie of every institution.
And because if your behaviour is causing medical injury, you don’t deserve plausible deniability.
You deserve publication.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Disability Harassment Resulting in Medical Deterioration

  • Institutional Retaliation After Legal Proceedings Began

  • Failure to Protect a Medically Exempt Parent

  • Cross-Agency Neglect of Procedural and Legal Notifications

  • Ongoing Contact in Violation of Safeguarding Protocol and Litigation Boundaries

V. SWANK’s Position

They were informed.
They were copied.
They were cc’d on the consequences of their own misconduct.
There is no “we didn’t know.”
There is only “you continued anyway.”
This isn’t an email. It’s a subpoena with a send button.

⟡ 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.
No comments:

I Filed the Lawsuit and I Couldn’t Breathe — Everyone Got the Email.


⟡ “I Filed My Lawsuit. They Ignored My Lungs.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Informs Kirsty Hornal, NHS, Legal Counsel, and RBKC of N1 Claim Filing — Links Ongoing Respiratory Harm to Social Work Conduct

Filed: 24 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-10
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-24_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_N1ClaimFiling_DisabilityImpactStatement.pdf
Summary: Email from Polly Chromatic announcing formal N1 lawsuit filing. Sent to Kirsty Hornal, NHS, and legal teams. Cites exacerbated vocal cord injury and asthma from Hornal’s previous visit.

I. What Happened

On 24 February 2025, Polly Chromatic sent a group email to:

  • Kirsty Hornal (Westminster)

  • Laura Savage (Merali Beedle)

  • Simon O’Meara (Blackfords)

  • Gideon Mpalanyi (RBKC)

  • Philip Reid (NHS)

She stated:

“I’m submitting my lawsuit today. Have a nice week.”
“My vocal cords are still extremely exacerbated from Kirsty’s last visit... I can barely talk and also can’t breathe well.”

She attached the N1 Claim Form, making this a formal timestamped filing announcement.

The email was also forwarded to Harley Street Mental Health, requesting delivery to Dr. Rafiq — confirming clinical documentation of harm.

II. What the Record Establishes

• The N1 claim was served and timestamped to all relevant actors on 24 Feb 2025
• A direct health impact (vocal cord damage, asthma exacerbation) from Kirsty’s presence was documented
• This forms part of the disability timeline and adjustment refusal narrative
• NHS staff were made aware that social work visits were causing harm
• No responsive duty of care was triggered — reinforcing deliberate inaction

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because lawsuits don’t begin with papers — they begin with harm.
Because emailing “I can’t breathe” isn’t a metaphor when it follows safeguarding escalation.
Because the harm and the legal filing were in the same sentence — and the system still refused to adjust.

SWANK logs every filing that came with a body count.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that social work visits can physically injure disabled claimants.
We do not accept that such injuries are irrelevant when disclosed alongside legal action.
We do not accept that this message was unclear.

This wasn’t a declaration of intent. It was a declaration of injury — and SWANK preserved it.

⟡ 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.


No comments: