“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 Medical Adjustment Breach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medical Adjustment Breach. Show all posts

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:

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:

Your Harm Has Been Logged. Estimated Resolution: Unknown.


⟡ “Your Complaint Has Been Logged — Now Please Wait Indefinitely.” ⟡
Social Work England Acknowledges Email Harassment by a Social Worker — and Files It for Later

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_Email_SWE_CasePT10413_SamBrownComplaintQueued.pdf
Summary: Social Work England confirms a formal complaint against Sam Brown is active (Case PT-10413), but cannot provide a timeline for triage or investigation.

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, a formal Fitness to Practise complaint was submitted to Social Work England regarding Sam Brown, a social worker at Westminster Children’s Services. The complaint cited repeated encrypted email contact despite a written-only medical adjustment, constituting email harassment, disability discrimination, and retaliatory behaviour.

Social Work England responded on 29 May 2025, confirming the complaint had been logged as Case PT-10413 and is awaiting triage. No timeline was provided. The complainant was informed that they would be contacted eventually for confirmation and further evidence.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Disability-adjusted communication requests are being ignored by state social workers
• Sam Brown made contact via encrypted platforms after being explicitly instructed not to
• Social Work England acknowledges the behaviour as triage-worthy, but imposes open-ended delay
• The system has no urgency protocol for retaliatory abuse related to legal proceedings
• Complaints about safeguarding retaliation are treated as passive case files, not active protection needs

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because even when a professional regulator receives evidence of harassment and rights violation, the institutional response is still a queue.
Because the role of a regulator should be to intervene, not to monitor from a distance while misconduct continues.
Because when fitness to practise systems cannot move quickly in cases involving retaliation, they become complicit through inaction.

SWANK archives the moment a regulator nodded — and then paused.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a formal complaint involving harassment and medical adjustment breaches can be deferred indefinitely.
We do not accept that safeguarding retaliation should be handled on a first-come, first-assigned basis.
We do not accept that state social workers can weaponise encrypted platforms with impunity.

This wasn’t triage. This was procedural stalling.
And SWANK will document every day between “we received it” and “we acted.”

⟡ 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