“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label NHS Complicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHS Complicity. Show all posts

Chromatic v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust On the Matter of Respiratory Retaliation and the Displacement of Maternal Authority by Appointment Clerk


⟡ Annex R – The Silent Stethoscope ⟡

In Which Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Mistook Itself for a Legal Guardian and Cancelled Asthma Appointments Accordingly

Metadata

Filed: 8 July 2025
Reference Code: N1/ANNEX/R
Court File Name: 2025-07-08_AnnexR_N1Claim_HammersmithHospital_ParentalExclusion.pdf
Filed by: Polly Chromatic 
Children Involved:
• Regal
• Prerogative
• Kingdom
• Heir

I. What Happened

In the polished corridors of Hammersmith Hospital, someone with a schedule but no legal authority made an administrative choice with clinical consequences:
to cancel respiratory appointments for four disabled children whose only mistake was being removed from their mother by social workers already under civil investigation.

The Claimant, their mother and lawful medical decision-maker, received no letter, no call, no consultation. Despite her children’s known asthma diagnoses, previous hospital oversight, and pending high-risk treatment pathways, the NHS Trust simply erased her — and her calendar.

This annex now forms the newest addition to the Claimant’s N1 civil claim. It signals not a scheduling oversight, but a sophisticated act of medical displacement carried out in collaboration with safeguarding professionals already the subject of public legal scrutiny.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

What appears on paper as appointment cancellations in fact reveals:

  • A targeted erosion of parental authority

  • The weaponisation of scheduling as a tool of bureaucratic punishment

  • A medical institution behaving as an arm of the state, without judicial instruction or constitutional integrity

This is not about healthcare delivery.
This is about institutional alignment with retaliation.

III. Procedural Breaches

  1. Violation of medical ethics – Withdrawal of essential care without consent

  2. Breach of parental rights – Silent displacement of legal decision-making authority

  3. Disability discrimination – Obstructed treatment for clinically diagnosed asthma

  4. Retaliatory collaboration – Evident synchronisation with safeguarding officers named in active legal proceedings

IV. Legal Context

This annex joins a formal £88 million civil claim and active judicial review naming:

  • Westminster City Council

  • Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust

  • Multiple individuals, agents, and complicit bodies

Grounds include:

  • Negligence

  • Disability discrimination

  • Safeguarding misuse

  • Procedural retaliation following litigation

The NHS Trust, by acting beyond its remit and in silent coordination with civil defendants, now becomes a subject of evidentiary concern.

V. Supporting Evidence

  • Letter to Hammersmith Hospital dated 8 July 2025
    2025-07-08_Letter_HammersmithHospital_AppointmentChangesWithoutConsent.pdf

  • NHS referral letters and appointment confirmations

  • Master Retaliation Timeline (June–July 2025)

  • Clinical documentation establishing the necessity of asthma oversight

VI. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this conduct as the quietest form of collaboration — the kind written not in emails, but in missed appointments.

The NHS Trust, in disregarding medical continuity and bypassing lawful parental authority, has ceased to operate as a neutral health provider. It has instead crossed the threshold into state-assisted exclusion.

Hammersmith Hospital will remain listed among the defendants named in the N1 civil claim. Its complicity has been noted. Its silence has been archived. Its cancellations have been converted into evidence.

This is not just poor practice. It is calculated omission disguised as care.

⟡ 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:

She Filed the Police Report. Then She Made Sure They All Read It.


⟡ They Escalated the Case — So She Escalated the Evidence. ⟡
When silence becomes strategy, the only reply is a police report — in writing, cc’d, and archived.

Filed: 16 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-16_SWANK_Email_Kirsty_MetPoliceReport_SubmissionNotice.pdf
A formal notification to institutional recipients confirming the submission of a police report against social worker Kirsty Hornal for misconduct, harassment, and retaliatory safeguarding.

I. What Happened

The social worker escalated.
The mother responded — not with fear, but with facts.
This email notifies Westminster Council, NHS Trust staff, and safeguarding leadership that a police report has been filed regarding Kirsty Hornal’s pattern of disability discrimination, abuse of process, and harassment.
The tone is composed.
The timing is devastating.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a police report was submitted and distributed across key agencies

  • That the grounds were legally and procedurally outlined

  • That the mother was documenting every stage of retaliatory safeguarding

  • That further contact after this point would be considered institutional misconduct under active complaint

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because you cannot claim surprise when the police were informed — in writing, in advance.
Because archiving is not defiance. It’s legal survival.
And because when institutions are complicit, public notice is the only remaining safeguard.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Harassment by Social Worker in Active Disability Context

  • Abuse of Safeguarding for Retaliatory Escalation

  • Procedural Misconduct under Public Authority

  • Refusal to Acknowledge Medical and Legal Protections

  • Coordinated Pressure After Evidence Publication

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a warning shot.
The recipient list was not incidental — it was strategic.
The institutions copied had the opportunity to act.
They didn’t.
Now, their silence is on record too.

⟡ 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: