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

The Adjustment Was Medical. The Record Was Fiction.


⟡ SWANK Medical Archive: Asthma Discrimination Ledger ⟡

“I Left for Medical Safety. They Wrote That I Was Removed.”
Filed: 2 January 2024
Reference: SWANK/ST-THOMAS/WRITTEN-BREACH-SECURITY-LIE
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_SWANK_Complaint_StThomas_AsthmaDiscrimination_WrittenOnlyBreach_SecurityFalsehood.pdf

I. The Breach Was Clinical. The Lie Was Institutional.

This complaint, filed directly with Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, is not an expression of dismay.
It is a dissection of malpractice, written with the clarity of someone who survived it.

You asked for written-only communication — medically documented, legally valid, and based on respiratory risk.

They ignored it.
You left.
They called it removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Eosinophilic Asthma and muscle dysphonia make verbal communication medically dangerous

  • Written-only adjustments had been:

    • Previously filed

    • Previously ignored

    • Previously used to escalate safeguarding instead of prevent harm

  • During this encounter:

    • The adjustment was once again breached

    • You exercised your right to exit for medical safety

    • They recorded it as “removal by security”, weaponising narrative to conceal liability

This was not a misunderstanding.

It was false record creation, filed under the guise of protocol.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this was never about one visit.
It was about a pattern:

  • Verbal insistence against clinical recommendation

  • Disability as disruption

  • Departure as defiance

  • And a hospital that prefers to be obeyed, not informed

We filed this because:

  • They lied in their record

  • They breached your adjustment

  • They endangered your life — and then tried to make it look like noncompliance

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept fabricated security narratives.
We do not accept disability framed as instability.
We do not accept clinicians who rewrite their own failures into your file.

Let the record show:

The adjustment was medically justified.
The breach was deliberate.
The hospital lied.
And now — the complaint is public.

This wasn’t removal.
It was survival — reframed by those who caused the 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