“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 misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GP misconduct. 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:

He Refused My Adjustment and Helped Them Retaliate. — A GP’s Ethics Filed for Review


⟡ 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.


No comments:

We Asked for Medical Care. They Sent Safeguarding. — The NHS Is Now Answerable to Parliament


⟡ Final NHS Complaint Escalated to PHSO: Discrimination and Retaliation Filed ⟡

“This isn’t about treatment delays. It’s about treatment as punishment — and the archive now includes Parliament’s ombudsman.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/PHSO/NHS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PHSO_NHSComplaint_DisabilityDiscrimination_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
A formal complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding NHS disability discrimination and retaliatory safeguarding abuse following lawful legal action. Submitted after exhausting all internal routes, with references to multiple regulators and an active judicial review.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the PHSO citing:

  • Disability discrimination by:

    • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

    • Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

    • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid)

  • Retaliatory safeguarding measures imposed after filing lawful complaints

  • Refusal to comply with a written-only adjustment, constituting medical harm

  • Obstruction of access to care, and abuse of safeguarding powers to neutralise legal risk

The complaint includes prior filings to:

  • GMC, LGSCO, ICB, ICO, and multiple NHS internal systems

  • A live civil claim for £23M

  • A Judicial Review in the High Court

  • A permanent public record at www.swankarchive.com

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That PHSO is now formally responsible for reviewing NHS-wide discrimination

  • That institutional actors have used care frameworks to punish dissent

  • That the complainant has followed every legitimate process

  • That the file is no longer private — it is published, cited, and publicly archived

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the NHS cannot claim ignorance once PHSO is notified.
Because safeguarding should not trigger retaliation when rights are exercised.
Because the denial of medical care isn’t a breakdown — it’s a strategy, now escalated to oversight.

This is not a review.
It’s a declaration of jurisdiction.
And if the ombudsman won’t act, SWANK will document that failure too.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept health care as conditional upon silence.
We do not accept safeguarding as a gag order.
We do not accept that harm ends when the ombudsman says "we’re not taking action."

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If care is denied in retaliation,
We archive the cause.
If oversight fails,
We publish the failure.
And if this complaint is ignored —
It will still be seen.

⟡ 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:

Three Providers. Zero Care. One Complaint Filed with CQC. — Unsafe Practice Isn’t an Anomaly. It’s the Pattern.


⟡ Unsafe Care and Discrimination Complaint Filed with CQC ⟡

“They called it care. But what they delivered was silence, obstruction, and harm. Now the regulator has it in writing.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/CQC/CARE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_CQC_Complaint_UnsafeCare_Discrimination_NHSProviders.pdf
A formal complaint to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) regarding unsafe care and systemic discrimination by Pembridge Villas Surgery, Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, and Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The submission cites breaches of statutory care duties, disability rights, and CQC-registered provider obligations.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., filed a formal complaint with the Care Quality Commission, naming:

  • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid)

  • Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

  • Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

The complaint documents:

  • Repeated denial of a written-only medical adjustment

  • Refusal to accommodate severe eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia

  • Discriminatory care withdrawal following legal filings

  • Complicity in triggering retaliatory safeguarding procedures

  • Neglect of statutory duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and CQC Fundamental Standards

The filing includes references to:

  • Ongoing complaints to PHSO, GMC, ICB, and ICO

  • A £23 million civil claim

  • A live Judicial Review challenging retaliatory safeguarding actions

  • SWANK documentation as evidentiary archive

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That three CQC-regulated providers are formally named in a statutory breach complaint

  • That unsafe care was both procedural and deliberate

  • That discrimination was not incidental — it was embedded in access policy and delivery

  • That the regulator now holds recorded jurisdictional responsibility

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when care collapses into control,
When refusal is framed as policy,
And when the record is more coherent than the treatment plan —
The archive steps in.

This is not a service complaint.
This is a public record of medical retaliation.
And it now lives in the jurisdictional file of England’s care regulator.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept care that punishes disability.
We do not accept providers who disable access and call it compliance.
We do not accept harm renamed as “standard procedure.”

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If care is withdrawn for speaking out,
We speak louder.
If the regulators delay,
We document the delay.
And if the NHS harms in silence,
We file the noise.

⟡ 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 Ignored My Adjustment and Helped Them Retaliate. — This Is What Primary Care Looks Like When It’s Political


⟡ Formal GP Complaint Filed with North West London ICB ⟡

“When a GP denies medical adjustments, falsifies records, and triggers safeguarding in response — it’s not care. It’s collusion.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ICB/GP-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_ICB_Complaint_PembridgeVillas_DisabilityDiscrimination_AdjustmentBreach.pdf
A formal complaint to North West London Integrated Care Board regarding disability discrimination and clinical retaliation by Dr. Philip Reid of Pembridge Villas Surgery. The complaint cites failure to honour medical adjustments, diagnostic manipulation, and complicity in multi-agency safeguarding abuse.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, on behalf of Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, submitted a complaint to the North West London ICB, asserting:

  • Refusal to implement a written-only medical adjustment, in violation of UK law

  • Clinical mischaracterisation of eosinophilic asthma and muscle dysphonia

  • Contribution to retaliatory safeguarding escalation after legal filings

  • Violation of medical ethics, disability law, and GP contractual duties

  • Harm to a disabled mother and four children through access obstruction and systemic deferral

This filing follows:

  • Direct complaints to the GMC, EHRC, NHS complaints system, ICO, and PHSO

  • A £23M civil claim and active Judicial Review

  • A documented pattern of primary care misuse as retaliatory administration

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That primary care is not exempt from scrutiny — especially when it harms by omission

  • That GPs can become instruments of retaliation when clinical negligence serves institutional goals

  • That written adjustments are not optional — and denial is a breach, not a misunderstanding

  • That the ICB is now on formal notice of the harm — and of its legal significance

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because GP collusion often hides behind slow paperwork and passive notes.
Because what happened was not an error — it was a pattern.
Because when your surgery becomes a gatekeeper to harm, you file the lock, the key, and the one who handed it over.

This isn’t a patient grievance.
It’s a legal record.
And now, it’s part of the archive.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept GP practices that obscure harm under clinical softness.
We do not accept the denial of access disguised as administrative inertia.
We do not accept that medical retaliation should go unchallenged because it’s local.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If your doctor joins the retaliation,
We name them.
If your adjustment is ignored,
We file the breach.
And if safeguarding is triggered from a consultation,
We archive the prescription — for harm.

⟡ 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