“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 GMC complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMC complaint. Show all posts

From Doctor to Defendant: The Ethics Complaint Dr Reid Earned.


⟡ SWANK Medical Misconduct Filing ⟡

“The GP Said My Son Didn’t Have Asthma. The Records Say He Did.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/DR-REID/PLO-MISREP/2025-05-21
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_GMCComplaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_PLOMisrepresentation.pdf

I. This Wasn’t a Mistake. It Was a Silence They Needed.

On 21 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint with the General Medical Council (GMC) against Dr Philip Reid, GP at Pembridge Villas Surgery, for:

  • Neglect of disability adjustments

  • Failure to advocate for a vulnerable child

  • And most damningly: misrepresentation of medical truth in a safeguarding context

This was not administrative oversight.
It was narrative engineering by omission.

II. What the Complaint Documents

Dr Reid:

  • Ignored a diagnosed disability requiring written-only contact

  • Withheld support during respiratory and safeguarding escalation

  • Told social workers your son did not have asthma — despite:

    • GP clinic notes

    • Medical referral letters

    • Hospital assessments submitted directly by the parent

That omission was cited in a PLO letter, forming part of the threat to remove children from their home.

It wasn’t just medically negligent.
It was legally consequential.

III. Why This Filing Was Not Optional

Because GPs are not observers.
They are gatekeepers of fact.

Because when a doctor refuses to affirm a diagnosis, the state is given free rein to label the parent unstable, manipulative, or neglectful.

Because this complaint:

  • Links primary care silence to safeguarding fabrication

  • Establishes a timeline of inaction, contradiction, and collusion

  • Marks the conversion of silence into professional liability

This was not clinical detachment.
It was procedural betrayal.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not beg for our diagnoses to be believed.
We do not tolerate the quieting of chronic illness to flatter paperwork.
We do not allow safeguarding fiction to be built on medical subtraction.

Let the record show:

The child had asthma.
The GP had the file.
The social workers had the lie.
And now, the archive has the complaint.

This is not a grievance.
It is a record correction — filed to the regulator, and engraved in the archive.

⟡ 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:

The GP Who Knew — And Stayed Silent.


⟡ SWANK Medical Conduct Complaint ⟡

“Silence Is Not Neutral. We Filed the Complaint.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/REID/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_GMCComplaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingComplicity.pdf

I. The GP Knew. The GP Did Nothing. And That Is Why This Exists.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC)concerning the clinical negligence and ethical complicity of Dr Philip Reid, GP at Pembridge Villas Surgery.

This complaint is not about misunderstanding.
It is about inaction weaponised by position.

The symptoms were visible.
The adjustments were on file.
The child’s asthma was documented.
The risk was real.
And Dr Reid chose professional silence.

II. What the Complaint Asserts

This submission records that Dr Reid:

  • Failed to affirm disability status despite visible impact and specialist letters

  • Withheld support and diagnosis for a medically vulnerable child

  • Ignored formal Subject Access Requests (SARs) for over 180 days

  • Remained professionally inactive while safeguarding was misused against a disabled parent

  • Did not intervene — not once — even when informed of hospital neglect, unlawful GP removals, and retaliatory escalation

This wasn’t forgetfulness.
It was tactical silence dressed in clinical detachment.

III. Why SWANK Filed With the GMC

Because when a GP refuses to document,
they make themselves useful to those who fabricate risk.

Because inaction by primary care:

  • Feeds the narrative that something is “off”

  • Provides a blank page for safeguarding lies

  • Undermines both treatment and legal defence

We did not file this for apology.
We filed it for record.
Because silence from a doctor is often the loudest violence in the file.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not mistake detachment for professionalism.
We do not confuse unresponsiveness with neutrality.
We do not allow doctors to protect their reputation by refusing to protect their patients.

Let the record show:

Dr Reid was informed.
Dr Reid did not act.
And now, Dr Reid is named.

This complaint is no longer invisible.
It is public.
It is timestamped.
And it has been filed — not just with the GMC, but with history.

⟡ 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:

Safeguarding Meant Staying Silent — So He Did


⟡ The GP Who Refused to Reply While I Couldn’t Breathe ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/2025-REID-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_Abandonment_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf

I. Not an Omission. A Decision to Abandon.

This complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) documents a period of calculated silence from Dr Philip Reid, a GP who:

  • Was informed of a medically certified written-only communication adjustment

  • Was aware of ongoing trauma-induced respiratory collapse

  • Was notified of active safeguarding misuse and retaliation

  • And chose to offer no intervention, no safeguarding referral, no record of care

This wasn’t oversight.
It was a professional refusal to act when action was the bare minimum.

II. When “Primary Care” Refuses to Care

The submitted evidence outlines:

  • Failure to respond to documented updates

  • Ignorance of pre-established disability status

  • No coordination with safeguarding bodies despite knowledge of procedural retaliation

  • And a pattern of institutional loyalty over patient protection

In Reid’s case, silence wasn’t neutrality.
It was allegiance to the abusive machinery.

He was the GP on file.
But he served the file, not the patient.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because doctors are not permitted to recuse themselves when patients are inconvenient.
Because safeguarding cannot be weaponised without complicity from those who remain “neutral.”
Because the refusal to act in the face of procedural violence is an ethical breach, not a scheduling error.

Let the record show:

  • The GP was informed

  • The diagnosis was clear

  • The adjustment was lawful

  • The need was urgent

  • And SWANK — filed the breach before the breath gave out

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe that silence is a medical strategy.
We do not permit regulatory professionals to ghost their ethical obligations.
We do not consider trauma-informed care optional when trauma is state-administered.

Let the record show:

The GP stayed quiet.
The retaliation escalated.
The patient declined.
And SWANK — issued the indictment with timestamps attached.

This is not a complaint about poor service.
It is a clinical abandonment report, typed in oxygen and evidence.


.


No comments:

£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:

£23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation


⟡ The Hospitals That Called Social Services When I Asked to Breathe ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/DUAL-SUBMISSION-NEGLIGENCE
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_StThomas_Chelsea_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingAbuse_£23MClaim.pdf

I. £23 Million: The Price of Ignoring Medical Evidence and Inviting Retaliation

This dual complaint, filed with the General Medical Council, names:

  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The charges:

  • Clinical negligence during documented respiratory crisis

  • Dismissal of protected disability adjustments

  • Use of “safeguarding” as reputational defence

  • Retaliatory contact disguised as care coordination

What they couldn’t treat, they investigated.
What they ignored, they weaponised.
What they feared — was documentation.

II. When Hospitals Operate Like Surveillance Branches

The evidence shows:

  • Medical notes vanished from timelines

  • Allergy labels overridden with procedural shrugs

  • Formal complaints followed by multi-agency escalation

  • Disability treated not as protected, but inconvenient

This wasn’t poor communication.
It was bureaucratic violence under clinical letterhead.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because medical malpractice is not neutral when it follows complaint.
Because no hospital has the right to summon safeguarding for a diagnosis it refused to read.
Because when patient harm is followed by agency collusion, the bill is measured in millions — and exhibits.

Let the record show:

  • The doctors knew the condition

  • The trust ignored the adjustment

  • The patient collapsed

  • And SWANK — filed the damages, formatted by respiratory episode

This isn’t a case file.
It’s a legal artefact of NHS-enabled sabotage.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit the NHS to use “concern” as a shield against liability.
We do not allow hospitals to threaten disabled mothers into submission.
We do not believe safeguarding is lawful when it follows whistleblowing.

Let the record show:

The care was delayed.
The asthma worsened.
The mother reported.
And SWANK — filed £23 million in civil response.

This is not anecdotal.
It’s court-sealed, regulator-notified, and irrevocably archived.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions