“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 St Thomas’ Hospital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St Thomas’ Hospital. Show all posts

Chromatic v St Thomas’ NHS & MPS: On the Willful Ignoring of a Police Report That Didn’t Suit the Safeguarding Narrative



⟡ Filed While Gasping (v2): The Police Report They Ignored So They Could Blame the Victim Instead ⟡
On the audacity of inverting a gasping woman into a criminal suspect — while CCTV sat unbothered in the corner


Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-FALSEINVERSION-20240102
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault_v2.pdf
Summary: Police report filed by Polly Chromatic after she was verbally assaulted at St Thomas' A&E while struggling to breathe. The report was never acted on — but she was.


I. What Happened

On the night of 2 November 2023, Polly Chromatic presented at St Thomas’ Hospital with severe eosinophilic asthma. Dizzy and unable to stand from oxygen deprivation, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while reaching a seat.

A woman in the waiting room launched into verbal abuse — racial, public, and aggressive. Polly, trying to hear the nurse, asked the woman to stop.

She was then moved calmly to another room by hospital staff.
The event was caught on CCTV.

The next day, Polly filed a formal police report: verbal assault, racially charged, triggered by a medical emergency.

She identified the suspect. She requested CCTV be reviewed.
She described what happened, what could be seen, and what couldn’t be denied.

But nothing came of it.
Instead — she became the subject of a safeguarding referral alleging she had attacked someone else.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Verbal abuse against a disabled mother during medical crisis

  • No de-escalation or staff intervention in the moment

  • Police report filed — and ignored

  • Hospital never investigated or submitted CCTV footage

  • The victim was recast as the aggressor by later social work teams

  • The original report was buried in favour of a narrative that facilitated child removal and psychiatric review


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how state lies begin:
With the erasure of first-hand reports and the inversion of credibility.
Because when a woman says: “I was attacked in public, while breathless, and my daughter saw everything”, the response should not be: “Let’s refer you to safeguarding.”

This police report is not just a form. It is a contested origin point.
The narrative reversal that follows can be traced back to this moment:
A breathless woman, filing a report —
Only to become the accused.

SWANK archives it to remind every authority involved:
We did tell you the truth. You just refused to read it.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment

  • Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair investigation

  • Article 8, ECHR – Respect for family life (daughter witnessed abuse)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to protect a disabled woman from discrimination

  • Police Code of Ethics – Failure to follow up on a report from a vulnerable person

  • NHS Duty of Candour – No acknowledgment or corrective communication from the hospital


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a plea for protection — filed while breathless, traumatised, and trying to keep her daughter safe.

We reject the erasure of disability and race in public abuse cases.
We reject the failure to review CCTV because doing so would vindicate the mother.
And we reject any safeguarding structure built atop a lie they were too lazy — or too biased — to disprove.

The hospital saw the abuse. The police were told. The state rewrote the victim.
We will correct the record, line by line.


⟡ 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.

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
📎 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.

Chromatic v NHS Fictionalists: On the Nature of Intoxication, Oxygen, and Procedural Degeneration



THE COLLAPSE OF THRESHOLD

Or, A Courtroom Confronts Its Own Fiction

Metadata

Filed Date: 11 July 2025
Reference Code: SWK-HRG-0711-EPO-STRATEGY
Filename: 2025-07-11_SWANK_HearingStrategy_EPOCollapse.pdf
Summary:
Filed to accompany the mother’s oral hearing appearance on 11 July 2025, this statement formally exposes the falsified medical claim that triggered an unlawful Emergency Protection Order. It requests discharge of the order, return of the children, and removal of named professionals due to proven misconduct and misdiagnosis.


I. What Happened

On 2 November 2023, the Claimant was admitted to St Thomas’ Hospital with a documented oxygen saturation level of 44% — a critical respiratory emergency. Instead of being treated for hypoxia, she was accused of intoxication. This error spiraled through the safeguarding system, resulting in her four children being forcibly removed via an Emergency Protection Order on 23 June 2025.

The Claimant’s formal hearing statement — supported by a bundle of SWANK audits and hospital evidence — demonstrates that there has never been an emergent risk. There has only been an emergent cover-up.


II. What the Statement Establishes

  • The originating claim of intoxication was medically false.

  • All safeguarding interventions relied upon this error.

  • No lawful threshold under s.38(2) of the Children Act 1989 was ever met.

  • Westminster and RBKC failed to correct or verify the hospital’s claim.

  • The Emergency Protection Order is invalid ab initio.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Crown must not retain custody built upon fiction. Because a mother with four U.S. citizen children, a 44% oxygen reading, and a paper trail of respiratory collapse should not have to disprove lies to reclaim her family.

Because the safeguarding process has become a rehearsal of reputational harm, and it ends here.


IV. Violations and Failures

  • Article 8 – Right to family life (ECHR)

  • Article 3 – Inhuman or degrading treatment (ECHR)

  • Children Act 1989 – s.38 misuse, s.17 noncompliance

  • Clinical negligence – St Thomas’ Hospital

  • Data and referral abuse – Westminster, RBKC

  • Procedural Retaliation – Following N1 and Judicial Review filings


V. SWANK’s Position

We assert that no lawful order may stand when its only threshold was disproven before the removal occurred.

We assert that the Emergency Protection Order is a judicial error created by institutional fiction and upheld through the bureaucratic embarrassment of admitting it.

We do not appeal for mercy. We demand precision. We require the return of the children — and the end of oversight based on oxygen illiteracy.


⟡ 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.

The Emergency Visit That Became Evidence



⟡ Oxygen at 44%. Discharged at 12:29. ⟡

The St Thomas’ Emergency Visit That Should Have Triggered Admission — But Didn’t

📎 Document: [2023-11-02_SWANK_GSTT_ED_Attendance_LowOxygen_Discharge.pdf]
Emergency Department record showing critically low oxygen saturation and respiratory collapse — followed by negligent discharge.

Filed: 2 November 2023
Ref: SWANK/GSTT/ED-FAIL-01
Location: St Thomas’ Hospital Emergency Department, London
Diagnosis Given: “No abnormality detected”
Actual Presentation: Generalised weakness with oxygen saturation at 44%


I. What the Readings Said — and What They Refused to Hear

I attended A&E on 2 November 2023, after weeks of collapsing breath, chest tightness, and loss of function.
I was so weak I could barely walk. I reported it. They documented it.

And then they discharged me.

Let the record show:

  • Venous pO₂: 4.2 kPa

  • Oxyhaemoglobin: 43.4%

  • Deoxyhaemoglobin: 55.2%

  • Oxygen saturation (venous)44.0%

These are not compatible with discharge. These are compatible with escalation, respiratory consult, and oxygenation therapy.

Instead, I was told there was “no abnormality detected.”


II. Institutional Blindness or Bureaucratic Crime?

What was the final disposition?

  • Diagnosis: none

  • Treatment: none

  • Prescriptions: none

  • Instructions: none

  • Safeguarding escalation despite life-threatening data: absolutely.

This document now proves that:

  • I had objectively low oxygen, verified and timestamped.

  • They saw it.

  • They did nothing.

  • And they sent me home — as if I were hysterical.


III. The Quiet Violence of Normalcy

C-reactive protein? Normal.
Full blood count? Normal.
Chest X-ray? Unremarkable.

And so, because the numbers they like were tidy, they dismissed the number that mattered: my ability to breathe.

It was this discharge, in this hospital, that marked the beginning of the most violent phase of medical erasure — a phase where safeguarding officers would later claim there had never been a problem.


IV. Filed Under: Evidence They Can't Deny

This PDF lives now in the SWANK Archive as:

  • record of respiratory danger reframed as nothing

  • clinical document of hypoxic neglect

  • prelude to months of silence, collapse, and systemic disbelief

The numbers are not angry. They are precise.
And they convict everyone who chose to ignore them.


⟡ 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.




SAR Filed. Adjustments Declared. Now You Have 30 Days.



⟡ SWANK Data Rights Archive ⟡

“I Didn’t Ask for My Rights. I Asserted Them in Writing.”
Filed: 15 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/SAR/STTHOMAS/FAMILY-DATA
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-15_SWANK_SAR_StThomas_Hospital_FamilyDataRequest_DisabilityAdjustmentAsserted.pdf


I. This Was Not a Request. It Was a Formal Declaration.

On 15 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. filed a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust — not in search of kindness, but in assertion of law.

It was not written emotionally.

It was written in statute, in clinical citation, and with the weight of five lives attached.

This letter demands:

  • All personal data relating to the Director and her four children

  • All safeguarding records, professional correspondence, and redacted insults

  • All decisions made without consent, but in her name


II. What the SAR Declares

  • The written-only communication adjustment is not negotiable

  • The hospital’s failures to respect this adjustment amount to:

    • Disability discrimination (Equality Act 2010)

    • Procedural retaliation

    • Obstruction of subject access rights (UK GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018)

  • The letter anchors its legal weight in:

    • Article 8 (Right to Private Life)

    • Article 6 (Right to Fair Process)

    • Clinical evidence: Dr. Irfan Raaiq’s written-only adjustment, November 2024

This wasn’t “just” a SAR.

It was a document of dominion over data, medical record, and narrative integrity.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we’ve had enough of:

  • Phone calls disguised as policy

  • Verbal access gatekept by kindness

  • Data locked in filing systems that respond only to tone, not law

We filed it because:

  • Your voice isn’t the price of your rights

  • Written-only is not unusual — it’s strategic and documented

  • Medical trauma is not a reason to exclude someone from their own file

Let the record show:

The SAR was sent.
The rights were cited.
The tone was firm.
And the archive — now contains the proof.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not wait for data to be “found.”
We demand it — legally, formally, and in writing.

We do not beg for respect.
We assert the law, the diagnosis, and the authority of our own archive.

Let the record show:

The SAR was filed under UK GDPR.
The deadline now ticks.
And the NHS has no excuse left but silence — or compliance.

This wasn’t a request.
It was a documented refusal to be erased.


⟡ 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.