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

He Refused My Adjustment and Helped Them Retaliate. — A GP’s Ethics Filed for Review


⟡ Ethical Complaint Filed Against Dr Philip Reid (Pembridge Villas Surgery) ⟡

“We don’t call it a GP relationship. We call it medical misconduct, politely submitted to the profession’s ethics desk.”

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/BMA/ETHICS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_BMA_EthicalComplaint_DrPhilipReid_PembridgeVillas.pdf
A formal ethical complaint submitted to the British Medical Association regarding Dr. Philip Reid’s conduct at Pembridge Villas Surgery. Allegations include disability discrimination, safeguarding collusion, and failure to uphold the ethical standards of medical care for a disabled patient and her children.

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic, on behalf of Noelle Jasmine Meline Bonnee Annee Simlett, submitted an ethical complaint to the British Medical Association (BMA) regarding:

  • Denial of a legally mandated written-only medical adjustment

  • Misrepresentation of medical facts in the patient record

  • Refusal to acknowledge or act on asthma and voice-related clinical needs

  • Complicity in triggering a retaliatory safeguarding response

  • Ethical dereliction under the General Medical Council's Duties of a Doctor and the BMA’s professional code

The complaint is linked to:

  • Ongoing filings to GMC, ICB, CQC, and PHSO

  • A live Judicial Review and civil claim for £23 million

  • SWANK’s public archive documenting systemic retaliation

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • That the BMA has been placed on notice regarding ethical breaches by a practicing GP

  • That primary care was used as a mechanism of control, not support

  • That the ethical foundation of the doctor-patient relationship was structurally ignored

  • That this was not a failure of understanding — it was a refusal to care

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because ethics aren’t abstract when harm is bodily.
Because silence in the face of adjustment requests is not neutrality — it’s alignment with abuse.
Because professional bodies must choose: protect patients or protect reputations.

This isn’t about an apology.
It’s about accountability.
And if ethics are just a PR function,
We document that too.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept ethical guidance as optional.
We do not accept “clinical discretion” when it violates rights.
We do not accept that a GP may collude in retaliation and keep their honour intact.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If ethics were breached,
We name the breach.
If the profession won’t correct its own,
We file the misconduct publicly.
And if care collapses into complicity,
We preserve the moment it became visible.

⟡ 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:

Documented Obsessions