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

Showing posts with label False Security Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Security Report. Show all posts

Chromatic v GSTT (PC-020): On the Elegance of Breath and the Bureaucracy of Blame


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

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/GSTT-ASTHMA-DISCRIMINATION-020
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-020_GSTT_AsthmaDiscriminationFalseSecurityReport.pdf
Summary: Foundational complaint to Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, documenting the discriminatory treatment and false reporting that occurred at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E on 2 January 2024. This letter is the origin document of the False Security Report Series and the first written articulation of respiratory discrimination as an evidentiary category within the SWANK Archive.

I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ Hospital A&E in acute respiratory distress due to a severe eosinophilic asthma episode.
Her daughter accompanied her, observing as the attending nurse continued to question her verbally despite visible breathlessness and documented communication limitations.

Unable to respond verbally and fearing imminent collapse, she voluntarily left the department with her daughter to preserve her health and safety.
No hospital security was involved.

Yet, within weeks, official NHS and police records falsely described her as being “removed by hospital security.”
This distortion turned a medical exit into a disciplinary myth — a bureaucratic inversion of patient autonomy.

The next day, 3 January 2024, she was treated at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, given nebuliser therapy, diagnosed with COVID-19, and prescribed prednisone.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That St Thomas’ Hospital failed to apply reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 for a patient with a documented respiratory and communication disability.
• That staff negligence endangered both patient and child.
• That internal documentation was falsified, recording a security removal that never occurred.
• That this falsification spread through the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service, mutating into procedural defamation.
• That institutional dishonesty, once written, metastasises.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the original version of the event before institutional mythology rewrote it.
• To establish a jurisprudential record of asthma-related discrimination and narrative manipulation.
• To create a permanent evidentiary counterpoint to NHS documentation.
• Because truth, unarchived, disappears.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Statutory Basis
• Equality Act 2010 — failure to accommodate disability (ss.15, 19, 20).
• Data Protection Act 2018 — accuracy principle (s.171).
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 3, 6, 8, and 14 — degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination.

Ethical & Clinical Standards
• NHS Constitution — right to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.
• GMC Good Medical Practice — responsibility to communicate effectively and adapt to patient needs.
• NMC Code of Conduct (2018) — duty to recognise communication barriers and prevent harm.

Regulatory Oversight
• Care Quality Commission (CQC)
• Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)
• NHS Resolution (Case Reference 2025/RES/A23)

V. SWANK’s Position

“A false report is a bureaucrat’s masterpiece — precision without truth, authority without breath.”

SWANK London Ltd. regards this incident as the founding case of procedural retaliation within clinical settings, where institutional discomfort eclipses medical ethics.
The letter therefore stands not as a complaint but as a jurisdictional fossil — the first written evidence that patient autonomy, when inconvenient, is recoded as misconduct.

It marks the beginning of the Respiratory Discrimination Archive, the aesthetic record of what happens when care collapses into control.

⟡ 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 breath deserves justice.
And bureaucracy deserves memory.

⚖️ 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:

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: