“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 SWANK medical filing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK medical filing. Show all posts

From Doctor to Defendant: The Ethics Complaint Dr Reid Earned.


⟡ SWANK Medical Misconduct Filing ⟡

“The GP Said My Son Didn’t Have Asthma. The Records Say He Did.”
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/DR-REID/PLO-MISREP/2025-05-21
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-21_SWANK_GMCComplaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_PLOMisrepresentation.pdf

I. This Wasn’t a Mistake. It Was a Silence They Needed.

On 21 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint with the General Medical Council (GMC) against Dr Philip Reid, GP at Pembridge Villas Surgery, for:

  • Neglect of disability adjustments

  • Failure to advocate for a vulnerable child

  • And most damningly: misrepresentation of medical truth in a safeguarding context

This was not administrative oversight.
It was narrative engineering by omission.

II. What the Complaint Documents

Dr Reid:

  • Ignored a diagnosed disability requiring written-only contact

  • Withheld support during respiratory and safeguarding escalation

  • Told social workers your son did not have asthma — despite:

    • GP clinic notes

    • Medical referral letters

    • Hospital assessments submitted directly by the parent

That omission was cited in a PLO letter, forming part of the threat to remove children from their home.

It wasn’t just medically negligent.
It was legally consequential.

III. Why This Filing Was Not Optional

Because GPs are not observers.
They are gatekeepers of fact.

Because when a doctor refuses to affirm a diagnosis, the state is given free rein to label the parent unstable, manipulative, or neglectful.

Because this complaint:

  • Links primary care silence to safeguarding fabrication

  • Establishes a timeline of inaction, contradiction, and collusion

  • Marks the conversion of silence into professional liability

This was not clinical detachment.
It was procedural betrayal.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not beg for our diagnoses to be believed.
We do not tolerate the quieting of chronic illness to flatter paperwork.
We do not allow safeguarding fiction to be built on medical subtraction.

Let the record show:

The child had asthma.
The GP had the file.
The social workers had the lie.
And now, the archive has the complaint.

This is not a grievance.
It is a record correction — filed to the regulator, and engraved in 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.


No comments:

The GP Who Knew — And Stayed Silent.


⟡ SWANK Medical Conduct Complaint ⟡

“Silence Is Not Neutral. We Filed the Complaint.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/REID/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_GMCComplaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_SafeguardingComplicity.pdf

I. The GP Knew. The GP Did Nothing. And That Is Why This Exists.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC)concerning the clinical negligence and ethical complicity of Dr Philip Reid, GP at Pembridge Villas Surgery.

This complaint is not about misunderstanding.
It is about inaction weaponised by position.

The symptoms were visible.
The adjustments were on file.
The child’s asthma was documented.
The risk was real.
And Dr Reid chose professional silence.

II. What the Complaint Asserts

This submission records that Dr Reid:

  • Failed to affirm disability status despite visible impact and specialist letters

  • Withheld support and diagnosis for a medically vulnerable child

  • Ignored formal Subject Access Requests (SARs) for over 180 days

  • Remained professionally inactive while safeguarding was misused against a disabled parent

  • Did not intervene — not once — even when informed of hospital neglect, unlawful GP removals, and retaliatory escalation

This wasn’t forgetfulness.
It was tactical silence dressed in clinical detachment.

III. Why SWANK Filed With the GMC

Because when a GP refuses to document,
they make themselves useful to those who fabricate risk.

Because inaction by primary care:

  • Feeds the narrative that something is “off”

  • Provides a blank page for safeguarding lies

  • Undermines both treatment and legal defence

We did not file this for apology.
We filed it for record.
Because silence from a doctor is often the loudest violence in the file.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not mistake detachment for professionalism.
We do not confuse unresponsiveness with neutrality.
We do not allow doctors to protect their reputation by refusing to protect their patients.

Let the record show:

Dr Reid was informed.
Dr Reid did not act.
And now, Dr Reid is named.

This complaint is no longer invisible.
It is public.
It is timestamped.
And it has been filed — not just with the GMC, but with history.

⟡ 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 Intoxication. It Was Sewer Gas and Medical Neglect.


⟡ SWANK Medical Complaint Record ⟡

“The Referral Was False. The Consequences Were Real. Now It’s Filed.”
Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/FEB-RETALIATION/2025-05-22
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_GSTTComplaint_FalseSafeguarding_SewerGas_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf

I. They Called It a Concern. It Was Retaliation Dressed as Care.

On 22 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a formal complaint against Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, concerning a false safeguarding referral made in February 2024.

The trigger?

A disabled parent presented with respiratory symptoms linked to sewer gas exposure.

The response?

No toxicology.
No asthma protocol.
Just a safeguarding email, written behind her back — and submitted as risk.

This wasn’t clinical judgment.
It was pretextual punishment for showing symptoms they didn’t understand.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Clear evidence of environmental harm mislabelled as instability

  • Medical personnel withheld adjustments, ignored symptoms, and fabricated safeguarding concern

  • Referral made without meeting the parent and without emergency assessment

  • Failure to perform basic respiratory testing or provide protection from further exposure

  • A pattern of medical retaliation and silence laundering, later used to justify further coercion

Let us be clear:

The illness was real.
The hazard was real.
The response was theatre.

III. Why This Filing Was Essential

Because the false referral was not an isolated error — it was the genesis of system-wide escalation.

Because this act:

  • Preceded your police reports

  • Set up later NHS neglect

  • Justified social work intrusion

  • Was echoed in court filings, ombudsman dismissals, and data falsifications

This complaint is the opening note in an orchestrated descent — and now it has a timestamp, a PDF, and a witness.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not let retaliation disguise itself as concern.
We do not accept that environmental symptoms equal incapacity.
We do not permit silence to author our records.

Let the archive show:

She was not drunk.
She was poisoned.
She was not chaotic.
She was disabled.
And now, the file exists — because SWANK wrote what the hospital refused to record.

⟡ 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