“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 Pembridge Villas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pembridge Villas. Show all posts

We Need Your Permission to Investigate What You Already Told Us Happened


⟡ “We Cannot Investigate Without Your Signature — Even Though You Already Told Us Everything.” ⟡
NHS North West London ICB Requests Formal Consent to Proceed with Complaint Against Pembridge Villas Surgery

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/FORM-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Form_NHS-NWL-ICB_ConsentToProcess_PembridgeComplaint.pdf
Summary: NHS NWL ICB issues a consent form for access to personal medical records in relation to a formal complaint against Pembridge Villas Surgery, confirming that the investigation is pending consent.

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, NHS North West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) issued a formal consent form regarding a complaint filed against Pembridge Villas Surgery. The form requests permission to:

– Share the complaint with Pembridge Villas Surgery
– Access medical records
– Receive a response from Pembridge containing personal data
– Share information with NHS England

It also warns that failure to return the form within 14 days may result in suspension of the complaint.

II. What the Record Establishes

• NHS NWL ICB has opened a complaint file regarding misconduct or failure by Pembridge Villas Surgery
• Progression is now conditional on formal consent, even though prior written testimony was already submitted
• Medical records will be exchanged between local provider and commissioning bodies
• This marks a jurisdictional handoff into internal NHS governance and response chains
• The complaint's legitimacy is not questioned — only its process is delayed pending consent

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because bureaucracies often act as if filing the complaint wasn’t enough — your trauma must be re-authorised.
Because this document proves the system cannot ignore the claim — it must now ask permission to process its own failings.
Because requiring another form is not evidence of caution — it’s evidence of institutional self-protection.

SWANK logs every procedural checkpoint as proof that the system didn’t forget — it stalled.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that truth must be consented to twice.
We do not accept that institutional accountability should hinge on duplicate paperwork.
We do not accept that failing to process a complaint due to admin formality is ever neutral.

This wasn’t just a form. It was a stall disguised as protocol.
And SWANK will timestamp every time the system paused itself.

⟡ 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 False Record Becomes the Real Threat: NHS Misuse of Medical Data as Safeguarding Fuel


⟡ “They Called It Care. They Used It As Evidence.” ⟡
Formal Complaint to the National Data Guardian: Medical Records Were Misused to Justify Retaliation, Not Treatment

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS-DATA/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_Email_NationalDataGuardian_MedicalRecordMisuseAcrossNHS.pdf
Summary: Complaint alleging systemic misuse of medical records by multiple NHS bodies and social services to justify safeguarding action, in breach of data ethics and written communication rights.

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett (Polly Chromatic) submitted a formal complaint to the National Data Guardian. The complaint outlines how multiple NHS bodies — including Pembridge Villas Surgery, Chelsea & Westminster, Guy’s & St Thomas’, and Westminster Children’s Services — misused or failed to correct personal medical records.

The key allegations:
– False or misleading data was used to justify coercive safeguarding
– Written-only communication adjustments were ignored
– Records were not updated despite formal correction requests
– These errors directly impacted care, safety, and dignity

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• NHS and social services violated Caldicott Principles 4, 6, and 7 — data accuracy, justified use, and duty to prevent harm
• Medical records became tools of administrative control and institutional gaslighting
• Disabling health conditions were turned into safeguarding triggers
• Correction requests were treated as non-events, giving institutions plausible deniability
• The NHS’s record-handling system functioned as a weapon, not a safeguard

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this isn’t a documentation error — it’s a structural failure that collapses trust, care, and consent.
Because written-only medical requests are not “preferences” — they are lifelines.
Because recordkeeping isn’t neutral when what gets recorded is what gets used against you.

SWANK logs the misuse of records not just as negligence — but as narrative control.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that records can be manipulated to justify coercive state involvement.
We do not accept that falsehoods can outlive formal correction.
We do not accept that any medical record system — NHS or otherwise — can ignore certified disability adjustments.

This wasn’t a data breach. This was a data weaponisation.
And SWANK will archive every document they hoped would be forgotten behind a firewall.

⟡ 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:

Consent, Countdown, and Complaint PC25-035


⟡ “We Acknowledge the Complaint. You Have Until June 10th to Sign.” ⟡
NHS North West London ICB Confirms Investigation into Pembridge Villas Surgery, Pending Consent Return

Filed: 27 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-27_SWANK_Email_NHS-NWL-ICB_ComplaintAcknowledgement_Pembridge_PC25-035.pdf
Summary: NHS North West London confirms your complaint against Pembridge Villas Surgery has been formally opened under reference PC25-035, with a consent deadline and response timeline issued.

I. What Happened

On 27 May 2025, the NHS NWL ICB officially acknowledged a complaint filed by Polly Chromatic (Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) regarding Pembridge Villas Surgery, referencing medical harm, administrative misconduct, and access denial.

Key milestones in the message include:

– Consent form required by 10 June 2025
– Pembridge response due back to the ICB within 2 weeks of consent receipt
– Full ICB reply expected no later than 21 July 2025
– Case number: PC25-035 (CP)
– Offer of independent advocacy (POhWER)

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• NHS ICB has formally acknowledged the complaint and opened a regulatory investigation
• The complaint was considered valid enough to warrant referral to the practice manager
• A procedural deadline was set — allowing for precise tracking of delays or failures
• Advocacy access is standardised, suggesting recognition of structural complexity or harm
• The message confirms institutional responsibility to respond, not just receive

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because acknowledgment is no longer enough — now we count down.
Because the case exists in their records — and in SWANK’s memory.
Because this is the email that makes a complaint traceable — and a delay provable.

SWANK documents when the complaint becomes real in their system — and even more real in ours.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that care failures can be paused pending paperwork.
We do not accept that deadlines are a courtesy — they are clocks for accountability.
We do not accept that acknowledgment ends the harm — it simply begins the scrutiny.

This wasn’t a confirmation. This was a procedural trigger.
And SWANK will archive what they promised — and what they deliver.

⟡ 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 Called It Security. We Called It Retaliation. — SAR Denied, Accuracy Breached, ICO Notified


⟡ Complaint Filed: Data Misuse and Access Denial Logged with ICO ⟡

“They encrypted what they shouldn’t. They withheld what they couldn’t. And they blamed it on care.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/ICO/DATA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_ICO_DataComplaint_Westminster_PembridgeVillas_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf
A formal data protection complaint submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) citing SAR denial, inaccurate records, and disability-based access obstruction by Pembridge Villas Surgery and Westminster City Council. Legal citations include UK GDPR Articles 5, 12, 15, 16, and 21.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal complaint to the ICO, naming:

  • Pembridge Villas Surgery (Dr. Philip Reid) for inaccurate, uncorrected medical entries

  • Westminster City Council for denying SAR access on discriminatory grounds

  • The use of email encryption despite a written-only medical adjustment prohibiting it

  • Ongoing refusal to provide records related to civil claims, medical care, and safeguarding misuse

The complaint asserts multiple breaches of UK GDPR, including:

  • Article 5 – Accuracy

  • Article 12 – Transparent communication

  • Article 15 – Right of access

  • Article 16 – Right to rectification

  • Article 21 – Right to object (especially on medical adjustment grounds)

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That two institutional actors are cited for data-related harm

  • That disability adjustments were actively ignored, violated, and used to justify silence

  • That inaccurate records remain uncorrected — despite multiple formal notifications

  • That ICO is now on record as regulator with jurisdictional notice from the harmed party

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the denial of access is not administrative — it’s structural.
Because inaccurate records are not mistakes — they’re strategy.
Because what Westminster calls “encrypted” is what we call withheld, delayed, and buried.

The ICO may call it a breach.
We call it a pattern.
And now it’s filed — precisely, fully, and in public.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept encryption as camouflage.
We do not accept “accuracy” defined by those who retaliate.
We do not accept SAR denials dressed up as medical concern.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If they won’t let you access the file,
We build our own.
If they rewrite the record,
We publish the one they tried to bury.
And if data law is violated with a smile,
We time-stamp the grin.

⟡ 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