“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 GSTT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GSTT. Show all posts

When the Adjustment Is Medical and the Refusal Is Personal.


⟡ “Adjustment Requested. Retaliation Received.” ⟡

A complete evidentiary annex submitted in legal proceedings documenting Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust’s refusal to implement lawful disability adjustments for Polly Chromatic and her children.

Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/ADA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-05_SWANK_GSTT_DisabilityAdjustmentAnnex_FailureToAccommodate.pdf
Includes correspondence, legal declarations, policy references, and clinical context proving discriminatory denial of medical adjustments.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic formally requested reasonable adjustments from GSTT due to:

  • Severe eosinophilic asthma

  • Muscle dysphonia and verbal communication barriers

  • PTSD from prior medical trauma

  • Sole caregiving for four disabled U.S. citizen children

Despite repeated notices, the Trust refused to implement even basic accommodations — instead escalating institutional surveillance and retaliation.

II. What the Record Establishes

  • That GSTT was provided with medical records, legal rights citations, and clinical justification

  • That multiple written requests for adjustments were ignored or denied

  • That denial of care was tied to Polly Chromatic’s lawful resistance and complaint activity

  • That these failures led to further medical harm and increased safeguarding pressure

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the NHS is not exempt from the Equality Act.
Because disability rights aren’t suggestions —
they’re statutory obligations.

Because retaliation disguised as “clinical policy” is still retaliation.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010: Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • Human Rights Act: Violation of right to healthcare and bodily autonomy

  • GMC Code of Practice breaches by participating clinicians

  • Retaliatory denial of care in response to complaints and documentation

  • Disability discrimination under UK and international law

V. SWANK’s Position

This annex was submitted to show the law was clear.
The request was legal. The need was medical. The refusal was ideological.

Now, the public has the file the NHS tried to ignore.

⟡ 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:

They Delayed. We Filed Again. And This Time It’s Public.


⟡ SWANK Resubmission Record ⟡

“The Complaint They Ignored. The Resubmission They Can’t.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/RESUBMIT/2025-06-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Resubmission_GSTT_DisabilityNegligence_NoResponse_EqualityAct.pdf

I. When Silence Is a Strategy, Filing Is a Weapon

This is not a new complaint.
It is the same one they ignored — returned, escalated, and now recorded.

On 2 June 2025, SWANK London Ltd. formally resubmitted a complaint to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust concerning:

  • Disability discrimination

  • Clinical negligence

  • Safeguarding abuse

  • Procedural delay

  • Breach of the Equality Act 2010

They had 8 weeks to respond.
They chose not to.
So we filed it again — publicly, and with improved tone.

II. What They Tried to Avoid

The original complaint, submitted in March 2025, detailed:

  • Eosinophilic asthma neglected

  • Written-only communication breached

  • NHS staff retaliation disguised as “concern”

  • Psychological and physiological harm

  • No resolution. No final letter. No closure.

PHSO refused to investigate without a final reply.
GSTT simply never sent one.

So we gave them another opportunity — with a timestamp.

They used silence as defence.
We used resubmission as evidence.

III. Why This Is Now a Public Filing

Because delay is not neutral.
Because the Equality Act does not allow NHS bodies to ignore disabled patients.
Because your “final response” cannot be: no response.

This document now functions as:

  • A trigger for PHSO escalation

  • A formal record of institutional avoidance

  • A statement of intent from SWANK: we don’t go away — we resubmit louder

IV. SWANK’s Position

They didn’t reject the complaint.
They erased it.
And in doing so, proved the very allegation at its core: that disability complaint invites punishment — or disappearance.

We do not wait politely.
We file permanently.
This document is now part of the public archive.

Let the record show:

They were told once.
They were told again.
And now the silence speaks louder than anything they could write.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions