“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 GP Negligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GP Negligence. Show all posts

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:

When the GP Abandons the Record, the Archive Begins.


⟡ SWANK Medical Ethics Complaint ⟡

“The GP Knew the Risks. He Documented Nothing. So We Filed It for Him.”
Filed: 1 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/BMA/DR-REID/2025-06-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-01_SWANK_BMAComplaint_DrPhilipReid_Ethics_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf

I. What He Failed to Write, We Filed.

On 1 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal ethics complaint to the British Medical Association (BMA)against Dr Philip Reid, a GP affiliated with Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust.

This is not a complaint about bedside manner.
It is a submission of recorded ethical negligence — sustained, documented, and systemically consequential.

The diagnosis was clear.
The risk was high.
The patient was disabled.
The GP said nothing.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Asthma symptoms ignored in a patient with a formal diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma

  • Voice loss, dysphonia, and respiratory collapse left unrecorded, untreated, and unactioned

  • Safeguarding escalation followed shortly after medical complaint

  • Disability adjustments (including written-only contact) blatantly disregarded

  • Refusal to intervene, advocate, or report risk — despite repeated disclosures

Dr Reid’s omissions were not passive.
They were a tactical silence that enabled procedural harm.

III. Why This Was Filed with the BMA

Because what is not recorded becomes weaponised.
Because patient silence is often coerced — and physician silence is licensed.
Because inaction in the face of medical distress is not neutrality. It is complicity.

This complaint was submitted not in hope, but in record.
It is a notice that the archive has noted the silence — and preserved it in writing.

The GP didn’t act.
The archive did.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit silence to masquerade as professionalism.
We do not tolerate medical inaction framed as objectivity.
We do not ask general practitioners to fix the system — but we do expect them not to collude with it.

This ethics complaint is now public.
Should the BMA decline to investigate, that refusal becomes part of the pattern.

Let the record show:

The GP was informed.
The symptoms were clear.
The child was at risk.
And now the file is permanent.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions