Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.): St Thomas’

Showing posts with label St Thomas’. Show all posts

If You Refuse to Treat Us, At Least Do It Quietly.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 24 November 2024
I CAN’T ARGUE. I’M BREATHING. PICK ONE.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Respiratory Endangerment · A&E Hostility · Medical Gaslighting · Child Treatment Refusal · Verbal Disability · NHS Bullying · SWANK Pre-Litigation Catalogue

To: Kirsty Hornal, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Sarah Newman
Cc: Laura Savage, Simon O’Meara, Gideon Mpalanyi, Dr Philip Reid
Bcc: Nannette Nicholson, Doyenne of Telepathic Correspondence

💬 THE LINES THEY STILL PRETEND NOT TO HEAR:

“No one will tell me what the ‘erratic’ behaviour was, given that I’ve only said I want treatment and can’t argue due to respiratory strain.”
“When a woman in the waiting area was abusing me, they blamed me.”
“All the hospitals share the same hatred and ignorance of asthma.”
“They refuse to treat my kids more than they refuse to treat me.”
“I’m going to sue them. It’s child neglect.”

🧠 VERBAL AUSTERITY STATEMENT:

I do not argue.
I breathe.

If you want to help—help.
If you don’t—move.
I will not waste oxygen proving my suffering to those who monetise disbelief.

🧬 ACCESS STATEMENT (STAMPED, SENT, IGNORED):

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Every refusal is now a receipt.
Every conversation denied is a case number pending.

📎 PRE-SUIT REMINDER:

You refused access.
You denied medical care.
You blamed me for needing it.

And now you’re logged.
Publicly. Permanently. Procedurally.

Polly Chromatic
Gaslit, blamed, untreated—and now suing.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Search Description:
A&E refused to treat asthmatic mother and children, then blamed them for needing care. Polly Chromatic files pre-litigation documentation.

Labels:
Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, Fiona Dias-Saxena, Philip Reid, NHS asthma refusal, St Thomas’, St Mary’s, Chelsea & Westminster, A&E abuse, verbal disability, child neglect, SWANK legal threat file

Your Hostility Is Not My Emergency—It’s Your Indictment.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 3 December 2024
WHEN I CAN’T BREATHE, I LITIGATE.

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Respiratory Assault · Bureaucratic Hostility · Institutional Discrimination · Sovereign Communication · Pre-Litigation Warning · Disabled Retaliation · SWANK Legal Threshold Archive

😤 THE STATEMENT THEY CANNOT UNSEE:

“When people become hostile towards me and endanger my health by continually discriminating against me when I can’t breathe well, I will be making police reports—and these will be followed by lawsuits.”
“No one seems to care about a solution and the police keep calling me and harassing me when I can’t talk.”

👁️ THE NAMED & THE ARCHIVED:

This is no longer a misunderstanding.
This is a record of willful negligence by:

Apple Covent Garden
Drayton Park Primary School
Westminster Social Services
Kensington & Chelsea Social Services
Westminster Police
St Thomas’ Hospital
St Mary’s Hospital
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital

Every institution above has—documentedly—interfered with respiratory peace, procedural justice, or lawful access accommodations.
They have earned their place in the archive.
They will earn their day in court.

💬 THE ACCESS STATEMENT THEY REFUSED TO HONOUR:

“I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.”

Yet they called.
They interrogated.
They demanded speech, then claimed concern.

This isn’t safeguarding.
This is sabotage.

⚖️ CLOSING REMARKS FOR LEGAL RECEIPT:

You were not caretakers.
You were triggers.
You were not allies.
You were surveillance.

You created a hostile environment
And now pretend it was concern.
You brought collapse
And expect compliance.

You’ll receive litigation.

Polly Chromatic
Breathtakingly litigious. Professionally endangered.
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
🌐 www.swankarchive.com

Disability, Gas Exposure, and the Criminalisation of Collapse

⟡ They Knew There Was CCTV. They Chose Not to Get It. ⟡

Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/2025-CCTV-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-22_SWANK_MetPolice_IOPC_CCTVFailure_DisabilityTrauma_CriminalAllegation_StThomas.pdf

I. The Footage Would Have Cleared It. They Never Asked for It.

This formal complaint was submitted to both the Metropolitan Police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), following their failure to secure time-sensitive CCTV from St Thomas’ Hospital — footage that would have captured:

A disabled mother in visible medical distress
A child abandoned by hospital staff
Multiple criminal allegations later weaponised against her
The systemic negligence of a healthcare setting posing as sanctuary

The footage existed.
The police knew it.
They did nothing — except file the incident against her name.

II. Disability as Pretext, Not Protection

This letter details:

Documented disability (Eosinophilic Asthma, muscle dysphonia, trauma collapse)
A documented gas exposure event
A child left in distress without medical staff present
No safeguarding breach by the parent — yet all suspicion aimed at her

Meanwhile:

Police failed to interview staff
Failed to secure CCTV
Failed to prevent reputational harm
But managed to “note concerns” with suspicious enthusiasm

This wasn’t policing.
It was a preloaded narrative dressed in badge logic.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because CCTV isn’t just footage — it’s protection for the truth.
Because omitting retrieval is a selective forgetting that harms only one side.
Because when you're a disabled woman, the burden is always to prove you weren’t already guilty — even while gasping for air.

Let the record show:

The footage was accessible
The officers were informed
The deadline passed
And SWANK — recorded the inaction as evidence

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe that oversight is neutral.
We do not permit post-incident amnesia to replace accountability.
We do not accept “lack of footage” when failure to collect it was strategic.