“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 retaliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHS retaliation. Show all posts

Chromatic v The Clinic: On Filming Harassment, Respiratory Retaliation, and the Misuse of Safeguarding Referral



๐ŸชžSWANK LOG ENTRY

Episode 6: The Social Worker Show

Or, When Breathing Was an Inconvenience and Recording Was a Crime


Filed: 19 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-EVIDENCE-RECORDING-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-19_SWANK_Episode6_SocialWorkerShow_HospitalBodycamEvidence.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic submits bodycam evidence of hospital harassment — and is met not with apology, but with retaliation via social services.


I. What Happened

On 19 October 2024, Polly Chromatic submitted an email to Westminster officials (and their police collaborators) with a direct link to video footage she recorded at the hospital.

The message was not a complaint.
It was a broadcast — of truth, breath, and bureaucratic contempt.

“I wore a body cam to the hospital because they kept harassing me and this is what I recorded. After this they called social workers on me for no reason. They should be punished. Disgusting behaviour.”

It was titled:
“Episode 6: The Social Worker Show.”

A name more accurate than anything Ofsted has ever published.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Polly was being harassed by NHS staff while struggling to breathe

  • That her disability was neither acknowledged nor accommodated

  • That her act of self-protection — wearing a body cam — was treated as aggression

  • That shortly after recording, she was referred to social services without justification

  • That retaliation for documentation is now a core feature of British safeguarding

The logic: If you record mistreatment, you must be a danger to your children.
The reality: You were never supposed to survive with proof.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the safeguarding machine is allergic to footage.

Because when the victim brings evidence, the institution brings the removal order.

Because Polly Chromatic didn’t raise her voice — she raised a lens.

Because the footage she shared is not just about a nurse — it’s about an entire system allergic to accountability, offended by transparency, and threatened by the act of remembering.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3 ECHR – Harassment during medical crisis

  • Article 8 ECHR – Retaliatory referral for protected activity

  • Data Protection Breach – Use of bodycam recording as pretext for safeguarding action

  • Disability Discrimination (Equality Act 2010) – Reprisal for medically necessary recording

  • Safeguarding Misuse – Referral as punishment for asserting lawful rights


V. SWANK’s Position

We consider this email a manifesto of documentation: a mother, mid-crisis, turning surveillance into survival.

Let the record show:
Polly Chromatic recorded to protect herself.
She was punished for it.
Her respiratory disability was mocked, not mitigated.
And Westminster’s reaction wasn’t concern — it was escalation.

What they couldn’t hear, they ignored.
What they couldn’t refute, they criminalised.
What she filmed, they feared.


⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

Chromatic v St Thomas’ Hospital: On the Inversion of Victimhood and the Weaponisation of Misdiagnosis After Verbal Assault



⟡ Filed While Gasping: The Hospital Assault They Tried to Frame as Mine ⟡
On the institutional audacity of calling the victim a perpetrator while she was too breathless to speak


Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-ASSAULT-20240102
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault.pdf
Summary: Police report submitted by Polly Chromatic after being verbally abused while gasping for air at St Thomas’ A&E. CCTV confirms she was the victim.


I. What Happened

On the night of 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic presented to St Thomas’ Hospital in a state of acute respiratory distress. She was dizzy from oxygen deprivation and unable to stand upright. During triage, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while attempting to sit.

An unrelated woman — a stranger seated in the back row — launched into loud, targeted verbal abuse. Polly, unable to hear the nurse through the attack, asked the woman to be quiet. Instead, the verbal assault escalated.

Polly filed a police report the very next day:
Verbal abuse, racially motivated targeting, disability-related vulnerability.
She specifically identified that the hospital had CCTV footage confirming the events — including her medical distress, her daughter’s presence, and the abusive behavior of the other woman.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Clear victimisation of a disabled mother in medical crisis

  • Targeted verbal assault in a hospital setting with no immediate intervention

  • Racial and disability-based aggression confirmed via self-report and visible footage

  • Submission of a police report that was subsequently ignored — while Polly was instead referred for psychiatric review

  • Institutional erasure of a documented assault in favour of redirecting blame onto the patient herself


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this incident triggered a catastrophic misdiagnosis —
St Thomas’ staff later alleged Polly had attacked someone, weaponising the racist and inaccurate inversion of events to launch a safeguarding escalation that led, months later, to the removal of her children.

This was the origin point.
The moment the truth was inverted.
The beginning of the safeguarding fiction.

What began as a woman reporting an assault became the false basis for criminal suspicion and psychiatric referral — all while the original attacker walked away, unchallenged, unfiled, and unreviewed.

SWANK records this not as an isolated event, but as the first spark in a long trail of procedural retaliation.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment

  • Article 8, ECHR – Right to family and private life

  • Equality Act 2010 – Disability and race-based discrimination

  • Police Code of Practice – Failure to investigate a victim’s report in good faith

  • NHS Duty of Candour – Non-disclosure of incident or follow-up communication

  • Children Act 1989 (indirectly) – Use of fabricated risk narrative in later proceedings


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an incident. It was an inversion.
Polly Chromatic walked into A&E struggling to breathe. She left as a fabricated threat — while her actual report was discarded.

This is how false narratives begin.
With one lie, one ignored complaint, and one piece of CCTV footage they refuse to watch.

SWANK will not allow this foundational reversal to be buried.
We will return to it every time the safeguarding myth resurfaces.

⟡ 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.


⟡ 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.

They Smiled While It Collapsed. I Carbon Copied Everyone.



⟡ “She Called It Positivity. I Called My Lawyer.” ⟡
A formally toned email from Polly Chromatic to Westminster safeguarding officer Kirsty Hornal, copied to Dr Philip Reid, the police, and solicitor Simon O’Meara — responding to years of retaliatory interference with NHS care and requesting lawful telecom adjustments. The tone: precise. The damage: permanent. The archive: live.

Filed: 12 April 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS-SOL-02
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-04-12_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_StThomasRetaliation_TelecomDisabilityRequest_SafeguardingInterference.pdf
Email correcting social worker misrepresentation, confirming systemic harm at St Thomas’, and requesting formal disability support for remote communications. Includes CCs to NHS consultant, police officers, and Blackfords LLP solicitor. The record is established. The story is no longer theirs to write.


I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic replied to a safeguarding update from Kirsty Hornal with the following:

  • Reframed Kirsty’s “positivity” as institutional gaslighting

  • Confirmed that NHS support was repeatedly denied due to safeguarding intrusion

  • Requested telecoms-based support due to verbal strain and medical risk

  • Copied:

    • Dr Philip Reid (consultant pulmonologist)

    • Metropolitan Police

    • Simon O’Meara, solicitor at Blackfords LLP

  • Included her formal SWANK disability clause:

    “I will reply to all emails within one week. Please do not expect verbal contact.”

She didn’t argue. She didn’t explain.
She documented, corrected, and escalated.


II. What the Email Establishes

  • That NHS services were disrupted because of safeguarding activity

  • That the social worker’s tone was inappropriate given the harm caused

  • That verbal disability was not respected, despite repeated clarification

  • That legal counsel was now actively observing agency behaviour

  • That the parent set lawful boundaries while staying procedurally correct

This is not disengagement. This is controlled containment.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because “positive” is what they call it when they ignore the damage they caused. Because when you’ve had medical care denied, surveillance increased, and verbal boundaries ignored, the only reasonable thing left to do is archive the performance and CC your legal team.

SWANK archived this because:

  • It’s a turning point from protest to jurisdictional procedure

  • It confirms that institutional harm was witnessed, corrected, and recorded

  • It establishes that safeguarding rhetoric was rejected with legal formality

  • It shows that from this point on, all responses were strategically monitored


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 –
    • Section 20: Adjustment request ignored
    • Section 27: Safeguarding caused direct medical and emotional retaliation

  • Human Rights Act 1998 –
    • Article 8: Disruption of medical care and family life
    • Article 14: Discriminatory interference masked as child protection

  • Children Act 1989 –
    • Intervention harmed family stability, not preserved it

  • Social Work England Ethics –
    • Euphemistic framing used to erase measurable harm
    • No apology or procedural acknowledgement of consequences


V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to injure someone and then call their response “negative energy.” You don’t get to withhold healthcare and pretend it’s optimism. And you definitely don’t get to write over someone’s medical reality with a chirpy paragraph and no cc’s.

SWANK London Ltd. classifies this document as a formal notification of procedural abuse, legal witness entry, and disability record — acknowledged by law, witnessed by 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.

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

 ๐Ÿ–‹ 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


๐Ÿ“Ž 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.


๐Ÿง  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.


๐Ÿฉบ 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.


๐Ÿ“ฃ 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”


๐Ÿ›‘ BOTTOM LINE:

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

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


Noelle Meline
Diagnosed, Documented, Defended.
๐Ÿ“ฉ 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

I Was Still in Respiratory Crisis When the Safeguarding Referral Began

 ๐Ÿฉบ SWANK Dispatch: I Asked for Oxygen. They Asked About My Children.

๐Ÿ—“️ 14 February 2024

Filed Under: asthma crisis ignored, safeguarding deflection, NHS retaliation, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital misconduct, medical records missing, predatory referral culture, breathless interrogation, parenting misused, legal evidence submitted


“I said I couldn’t breathe.
She said ‘You can.’
Then she said she’d call the police.”

— A Mother Who Went for Oxygen and Got Interrogated Instead


This letter, addressed to Samira Issa at RBKC Family Services, documents the harrowing experience of Polly Chromatic on 4 February 2024, during an asthma emergency at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.

She submitted this report to protect herself against another false safeguarding referral, and included:

  • A full audio recording of the visit (linked: YouTube Evidence)

  • Detailed peak flow meter values, including a drop as low as 112.8

  • Recorded oxygen saturation of 90%, pulse of 101, and blood pressure of 160/74


๐Ÿซ I. What She Documented

  • Was dropped at the door of the hospital by Uber because she was too weak to cross the street

  • Nurse refused to touch her medical log, even as she struggled to hold it

  • Was told, “You can breathe,” despite her visible respiratory distress

  • Medical records from the night before were missing, requiring a duplicate X-ray

  • After stating she had four children, a safeguarding trigger was activated


๐Ÿšจ II. What They Did

  • Asked about her children’s location while she was still in a medical crisis

  • Threatened to call police and social services before her second nebuliser was given

  • Only agreed to treat her after she insisted repeatedly

  • Prescribed prednisone and discharged her after her insistence

  • Initiated a false safeguarding referral, linked to the previous visit at St. Thomas’ — even though that visit was also for the same untreated asthma flare-up


๐Ÿ” III. SWANK Commentary

The moment you say "children,"
the system stops seeing your lungs.

This is how women with chronic illness are silenced —
through veiled threats disguised as “concern.”
She needed a second nebuliser.
They needed a narrative.

She has one now.

And it’s written down.



You Reported Me to Safeguarding. I Reported You to the Police.



⟡ They Ignored Her Oxygen Levels. So I Escalated to the Police. ⟡
“Your safeguarding concern was noted. So was your failure to treat her.”

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS-MPS/EMAILS-15
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailEscalation_NHSStMarys_HonorMistreatment_PoliceReportIntent.pdf
Escalation email following emergency mistreatment of Heir at St Mary’s Hospital A&E. Forwarded to safeguarding teams with notice of police report and refusal to remain silent.


I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, shortly after her daughter Heir was dismissed from emergency care despite respiratory distress, the parent:

  • Forwarded the complaint to Westminster Children’s Services

  • Included medical context, oxygen data, and details of hostile treatment

  • Noted that the hospital had escalated a safeguarding concern against her — instead of addressing their own clinical failure

  • Stated plainly that she would report the incident to police

  • Reminded all recipients that documented medical neglect was not excused by filing against the parent

The email stood as both evidence and warning: the system may escalate, but so will the archive.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That Heir’s mistreatment at A&E was witnessed, recorded, and reported immediately

  • That NHS staff attempted to reframe the incident by filing against the parent

  • That the parent proactively responded with a clear paper trail, not silence

  • That Westminster Children’s Services was informed in real-time and could not later claim ignorance

  • That the escalation to police was not for show — it was for legal accountability


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when your daughter needs help breathing and the hospital staff refuse to act —
and then file a concern about you —
that’s not safeguarding.
That’s cover-up protocol.

Because when you respond with oxygen readings, a timeline, and legal escalation —
you are not “uncooperative.”
You are documenting the scene.

And because when they send in safeguarding,
you send them the truth —
in PDF format.


IV. Violations

  • NHS Constitution – Duty of Care
    Breach of clinical responsibility in emergency paediatric care

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 and 8
    Degrading treatment and interference in family life

  • Children Act 1989 / 2004
    Endangerment of a child by systemic inaction

  • Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
    Valid grounds for police report on clinical misconduct

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 27
    Retaliatory safeguarding action following assertion of disability rights


V. SWANK’s Position

You didn’t treat her.
You dismissed her.
And then you filed against me.

So now I’ve filed back.
And this time, the police aren’t the only ones who’ll see it.

This wasn’t care.
It was cowardice in uniform.

We didn’t need a report.
We needed oxygen.
Now you’re the ones under review.


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.