Showing posts with label Medical Negligence. Show all posts

Ten Years of Damage for a False Suspicion You Can’t Let Go Of.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 4 February 2025
YOUR VISITS CAUSE RESPIRATORY COLLAPSE. YET YOU KEEP KNOCKING.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Eosinophilic Asthma · Viral Contamination · Medical Negligence · Social Work Harassment · Disability Refusal · Home Intrusion Records · SWANK Immune System Collapse Chronicle

📩 To:

Kirsty Hornal, Annabelle Kapoor, Sarah Newman, Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Gideon Mpalanyi, Rachel Pullen, Eric Wedge-Bull, Milena Abdula-Gomes, Rhiannon Hodgson, Samira Issa, Glen Peache, Philip Reid
Cc: Ministry of Health, Turks and Caicos
Bcc: Phil @ Sangye Yoga

💌 “INTERVENTION”? WE CALL IT CONTAMINATION.

“Every time a social worker comes in our home we are all sick for the next two to four weeks with a respiratory virus.”

What you term a “home visit” registers, medically, as pathogenic incursion.
You are not helping. You are shedding.
Your safeguarding theatre releases more illness than insight.

🫁 ASTHMA IS A DIAGNOSIS—NOT A DEBATE TOPIC.

“I have stated repeatedly that we all suffer from eosinophilic asthma…”

And yet: no protective protocol, no clinical precaution, no intellectual humility.
You respond to eosinophils with clipboard cynicism.
Asthma isn’t invisible—it’s merely ignored when inconvenient.

🗓 TEN YEARS. ZERO OUTCOMES. COUNTLESS INFECTIONS.

“Your investigations never end… they have wasted ten years of our lives.”

You’ve replaced education with disruption.
You’ve buried truth beneath paperwork.
You’ve built careers atop my children's breathlessness.

All while declaring yourselves “helpful.”

📎 VERBAL INTERACTION = DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

“I cannot speak verbally. Please email only. I do not own a phone.”

It’s not a quirk. It’s a legal boundary.
If you cannot accommodate the medically necessary,
you are not conducting a visit—you are performing a breach.

Polly Chromatic
Respiratorily persecuted. Bureaucratically stalked. Legally notifiable.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Contaminants Prosecuted.

I WILL NOT SPEAK. I CANNOT BREATHE. LEAVE US ALONE.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 9 February 2024

Hire Your Own Lawyer. Mine Is Already Working.

Filed Under: Disability Disregard, Repeat Referral Loops, NHS Retaliation, Verbal Coercion Refused, Medical Negligence, Legal Warning Delivered

📎 SUBJECT: Chelsea & Westminster Referral Resurfaces… Again

Social Work Participants:
– Samira Issa (verbal evangelist)
– Eric Wedge-Bull (silent but complicit)

Target: A chronically ill mother with four children, a legal team, and no time for this nonsense.

“I’m sick. I can’t breathe well. I will not speak out loud.”
“Not sure what you can’t understand.”
“So do not ask me to speak when I can’t breathe.”
“Leave us alone.”

This is not a refusal.

This is a life-preserving boundary.

🧠 Let’s Simplify:

The incident was 2 January 2024.
The response was given.
The boundaries were stated.
The lawyer was hired.

And still—Samira asks:

“Would you be able to meet in person?”

This is bureaucratic masochism.
A compulsion to escalate where no escalation is warranted.

🩺 THE MEDICAL POSITION:

Severe asthma
PTSD
Muscle tension dysphonia
Inability to speak during episodes
Documented legal request for written-only contact

Your insistence on a verbal conversation is not just negligent.
It’s aggressively unlawful.

📣 THE LEGAL STATUS:

Formal legal action for medical negligence
Pending claim for harassment and discrimination
Every referral filed under “retaliatory safeguarding theatre”
Every email filed under “evidence of misconduct”

🛑 BOTTOM LINE:

No, Samira.
No, Eric.
No, RBKC.

You will not receive a conversation.
You will receive court documents.

Noelle Meline
Diagnosed, Documented, Defended.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, serious, SWANK legal file, written-only mandate, verbal coercion ignored, safeguarding abuse, RBKC harassment, Chelsea & Westminster retaliation, medically silenced, sovereign motherhood, no consent given, escalation pending

Still No Response. — The Silence That Becomes a Second Violation

⟡ Complaint Reminder, Equality Reminder, Clock Is Ticking ⟡

“I therefore request that a full written outcome be provided within 14 calendar days, as required.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/REMINDER-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_Reminder_GSTT_EqualityAct_FinalResponseRequest.pdf
A formal reminder sent to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust. Filed under delay. Timed under discrimination. Notified to the Ombudsman. Clock included.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal reminder to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT), demanding a written outcome to a complaint filed on 10 March 2025.

That complaint concerned:

Medical negligence during respiratory crisis
Refusal to honour a written-only disability adjustment
A safeguarding referral filed after denial of care

Despite nearly three months of elapsed time, GSTT had provided no final response.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had already opened a file — but the Trust remained mute.

This letter imposed a final 14-day deadline.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Four months of institutional silence after a discrimination complaint
Active breach of NHS resolution standards
Equality Act 2010 invoked — and ignored
PHSO formally engaged and referenced
Trust placed on record for procedural delay, not just care failure

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because after three months of silence, every additional day is now admissible.

This isn’t a gentle nudge.
It’s a legally binding timestamp.
It converts delay into liability.
It formalises what the Trust tried to outlast:
That silence is now misconduct.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that a discrimination complaint can expire in an inbox.
We do not accept safeguarding as a punishment for asserting rights.
We do not accept that a medical crisis must be followed by a bureaucratic blackout.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
When they don’t respond, we escalate.
When they still don’t respond, we publish.
And when the clock runs out,
We file the delay as part of the 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.

Formal Complaint Regarding Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain: Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting

🦚 Formal Complaint Regarding Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain: Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting

Filed under the solemn documentation of safeguarding malpractice, discriminatory negligence, and bureaucratic myth-making.

24 March 2025
To:
RBKC Children’s Services Complaints
Email: complaints@rbkc.gov.uk

CC:

Mr. Ronald Yucca, Team Manager – ronald.yucca@rbkc.gov.uk
Ms. Jane Mountain, Social Worker – jane.mountain@rbkc.gov.uk
Mr. Earl Bullhead, Social Worker – earl.bullhead@rbkc.gov.uk

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Mr Earl Bullhead and Ms Jane Mountain – Procedural Improvisation, Medical Disregard, and Fictionalised Reporting

🧾 Dear Sir or Madam,

It is with an increasingly familiar sense of disbelief — and a dwindling reserve of patience — that I submit this formal complaint concerning the conduct of Mr. Earl Bullhead and Ms. Jane Mountain, social workers operating under the auspices of RBKC Children’s Services.

Their involvement in my family’s case has produced a regrettable cascade of:

Misrepresentation;
Procedural failure;
Discriminatory negligence.

The resulting harm has been not only administratively baffling but personally and medically injurious.

📜 1. Aggressive and Medically Harmful Interrogation of My Children

On or around 10 July 2023, Mr. Bullhead:

Questioned my sons, Prerogative and Kingdom,
Alone,
In public,
Without prior consent or contextual sensitivity.

The encounter:

Was described by my children as aggressive and emotionally destabilising;
Triggered asthma exacerbations, requiring at-home nebuliser intervention.

This breach of trauma-informed practice and disregard for medical wellbeing is indefensible.

📚 2. Factual Fiction in the Joint Assessment

The resulting joint assessment authored by Mr. Bullhead and Ms. Mountain asserts:

That I "yell at" my children;
That there exists a "pattern of conflict."

These assertions are:

Fictional;
Unsubstantiated;
Medically implausible.

The only "incident" cited:

A private phone call with my mother, involving no communication directed at my children.

This event was:

Misrepresented;
Elevated into an allegation of emotional harm without credible basis.

📜 3. A Curious Delay in Transparency

Despite finalisation of the assessment in July 2023, I did not receive a copy until October — a full three months later.

This obstructive delay impaired my ability to challenge inaccuracies, and allowed fiction to embed itself within professional records.

📚 4. Medical Disregard and Patterns of Discrimination

I have repeatedly documented:

Eosinophilic asthma;
Muscle tension dysphonia;
Severe stress vulnerabilities.

Despite this:

Written-only communication requests were ignored;
Medical risk was deliberately compounded by procedural choices.

There is also a discernible racialised pattern:

False referrals and racial harassment reports were handled with bureaucratic silence rather than investigation.

📜 5. Unprofessional Conduct and Evident Bias

The assessment reflects:

Narrative manipulation;
Omission of critical context;
A fixation on irrelevant personal details;
No objective evidence of neglect or abuse.

My children remain:

Thriving;
Secure;
Deeply bonded —
despite RBKC’s best efforts to undermine that reality.

🩻 Requested Actions (i.e., Remedial Steps for Institutional Repair)

I respectfully request:

A formal investigation into Mr. Bullhead’s conduct during the 10 July interview;
A written explanation of the evidentiary basis for the allegations of emotional harm;
Removal or correction of false and misleading statements in the July 2023 assessment;
An explanation for the three-month disclosure delay;
Written confirmation that all future communication will be conducted via email only, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010;
A formal written apology to myself and my children for the distress caused;
A review into racial and ableist biases within the handling of my case.

📬 Should RBKC Fail to Respond Adequately

Should an adequate response not be received, I will escalate this matter to:

The Local Government Ombudsman;
My Member of Parliament;
Legal counsel for proceedings under anti-discrimination law.

Further delay, deflection, or denial will be formally recorded as procedural noncompliance.

📜 Yours,

With constitutional clarity and recorded indignation,
Polly

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)