“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 asthma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asthma. Show all posts

A Child’s Affidavit of Captivity: In Re the Legalisation of Loss



πŸͺž SWANK London Ltd.

CHRONICLE OF A STOLEN SUMMER

“I Can’t Ride Bikes Anymore Because of One Mistake”
Journal Pages from a Captive Childhood


Metadata

Filed: 1 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-JOURNAL-0825
Filename: 2025-08-01_SWANK_JournalEntry_UnauthorisedRestrictions.pdf
1-Line Summary: A child writes about life under surveillance, emotional suppression, and the loss of joy and autonomy.


I. WHAT HAPPENED

One of Polly Chromatic’s four U.S. citizen children — a teenager with eosinophilic asthma — has been keeping a handwritten journal while living under state-imposed separation from their family.

These entries were written in pen, not for court, but in protest. They emerged not from counsel, but from the child’s own private resistance to a system that silenced their voice, banned their movement, and confiscated their expression.

The journal describes:

  • The prohibition of ordinary activities (bike riding, pencils, trampoline use)

  • A single social worker wielding unrestricted power

  • The erasure of communication tools

  • Asthma deterioration due to loss of physical activity

  • Mockery and restriction by carers

  • Acts of emotional survival: favourite animals, colours, food, fictional powers

This is not a therapeutic log.
It is a hostage ledger.


II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

These journal entries are not supplementary. They are primary evidence.

They demonstrate that a child in state care is:

  • Internalising institutional punishment

  • Attempting to rationalise arbitrary control

  • Recording the breakdown of trust, privacy, and autonomy

  • Documenting the loss of identity, movement, and expression

The writing is specific, coherent, and heartbreakingly clear.
It names the person who has power.
It names the freedoms revoked.
It names the sickness growing from silence.

This is not a failure of parenting.
It is a failure of state guardianship.


III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because no child should be told they can’t use a pencil upstairs.
Because “you’re from America” should not be a punchline.
Because breathing and biking are medical needs — not luxuries.
Because when courts don’t hear children, journals do.

And because when the system denies a phone, a notebook becomes litigation.


IV. VIOLATIONS

  • Article 12 & 13, UNCRC – Right to be heard; freedom of expression

  • Children Act 1989, s.1(3)(a) – Wishes and feelings of the child

  • Children and Families Act 2014, s.19 – Duty to promote well-being

  • ECHR Article 8 – Right to private and family life

  • Equality Act 2010, s.20 – Reasonable adjustments for disability

These entries indicate both medical negligence and psychosocial suppression — by omission, by regulation, by silence.


V. SWANK’S POSITION

These journal pages remain in the archive as evidence — not only of harm, but of resistance.

We do not redact truth for the comfort of the system.
We do not treat children's reflections as disposable.
We do not mistake bureaucracy for legitimacy.

The child wrote because no one would listen.
We publish because the court must.

This is not just a journal.
It is an affidavit of distress.


VI. CRIMES AND LEGAL BREACHES

The conditions described in this child’s journal are not only ethically indefensible — they may rise to the level of criminality. When state agents restrict a child’s liberty, suppress their communication, and jeopardize their health without lawful justification or procedural transparency, they cross the threshold from negligence to unlawful interference.

The following criminal and quasi-criminal offences are either established or strongly indicated:

  • Misconduct in Public Office – Through persistent abuse of authority by state social workers and carers in a public capacity.

  • Child Cruelty (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.1) – For inflicting unnecessary suffering through emotional coercion, denial of movement, and ridicule.

  • Neglect under the Children Act 1989 – Especially regarding the child’s documented health needs and psychosocial development.

  • Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997) – If conduct by carers or supervising agents is shown to be repeated, unwanted, and distressing.

  • Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments (Equality Act 2010, s.20) – Where asthma-specific needs and disability-related routines (e.g., exercise) are denied or obstructed.

  • Obstruction of Contact (Children Act 1989, Schedule 1, s.11) – Through systematic restrictions on communication and digital access with the child’s family.

  • Unlawful Interference with Family Life (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8) – A pattern of state conduct that collectively amounts to a breach of protected rights.

These violations are not isolated. They are coordinated through procedural passivity, narrative control, and denial of legal visibility. The journal entries themselves serve as sworn testimony in miniature — child-originated exhibits of harm, coercion, and disintegration of lawful care.

If committed by a parent, these acts would prompt child protection investigations.
That they are being committed by the state — and justified as policy — constitutes not just failure, but inversion.

This is not safeguarding.
It is containment.


⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd.
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This document does not contain confidential family court material.
It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints.

All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation.

This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth.
Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure.

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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Filed with velvet contempt.
Preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain.

Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols.

© 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.



In the Matter of Four Wheezing Citizens: Clinical Neglect, Asthma Suppression, and the Bureaucratic Allergy to Inhalers



⟡ They Took Inhalers, Not Evidence ⟡
Because medical records don’t scream. But they breathe.

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SECTION/0626-D
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Bundle_SectionD_MedicalNegligenceAsthmaAndSafeguardingFailure.pdf
Asthma diagnoses, specialist care plans, psychiatric evaluations, and safeguarding violations—fully documented.


I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four disabled children with asthma diagnoses were removed from their home without medication, continuity plans, or respect for known clinical dependencies. Section D catalogues the medical negligence embedded in that act.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Every child had formal NHS respiratory care in progress.

  • Medical appointments were scheduled. Prescriptions were active.

  • A sewage gas exposure in 2023 was ignored.

  • Disabilities (including Eosinophilic Asthma, PTSD, dysphonia) were not accommodated.

  • Removal disrupted respiratory stability, continuity of treatment, and access to urgent care.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding cannot override breath. Because every page of this section tells the court what Westminster failed to ask: “Does this child have asthma?”
And because documenting each appointment date is a form of resistance. Institutions erase. We annotate.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (Failure to make reasonable adjustments)

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 17 and 22 (Duty to safeguard and promote welfare)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 (Inhuman/degrading treatment), Article 8 (Family life), Article 14 (Disability discrimination)

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Article 7 (Children with disabilities)


V. SWANK’s Position

These aren’t just medical notes. They are pre-trauma records. They show a family managing complex disability—until a system weaponised procedure against breath itself.
The inhalers weren’t packed. But the evidence is. SWANK logs every molecule.


⟡ 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.

When the Adjustment Is Medical and the Refusal Is Personal.



⟡ “Adjustment Requested. Retaliation Received.” ⟡

A complete evidentiary annex submitted in legal proceedings documenting Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust’s refusal to implement lawful disability adjustments for Polly Chromatic and her children.

Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/ADA-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-05-05_SWANK_GSTT_DisabilityAdjustmentAnnex_FailureToAccommodate.pdf
Includes correspondence, legal declarations, policy references, and clinical context proving discriminatory denial of medical adjustments.


I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic formally requested reasonable adjustments from GSTT due to:

  • Severe eosinophilic asthma

  • Muscle dysphonia and verbal communication barriers

  • PTSD from prior medical trauma

  • Sole caregiving for four disabled U.S. citizen children

Despite repeated notices, the Trust refused to implement even basic accommodations — instead escalating institutional surveillance and retaliation.


II. What the Record Establishes

  • That GSTT was provided with medical records, legal rights citations, and clinical justification

  • That multiple written requests for adjustments were ignored or denied

  • That denial of care was tied to Polly Chromatic’s lawful resistance and complaint activity

  • That these failures led to further medical harm and increased safeguarding pressure


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the NHS is not exempt from the Equality Act.
Because disability rights aren’t suggestions —
they’re statutory obligations.

Because retaliation disguised as “clinical policy” is still retaliation.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010: Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • Human Rights Act: Violation of right to healthcare and bodily autonomy

  • GMC Code of Practice breaches by participating clinicians

  • Retaliatory denial of care in response to complaints and documentation

  • Disability discrimination under UK and international law


V. SWANK’s Position

This annex was submitted to show the law was clear.
The request was legal. The need was medical. The refusal was ideological.

Now, the public has the file the NHS tried to ignore.


⟡ 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.

One Hundred Notifications. Zero Adjustments. Total Liability.



⟡ “I Told You in Every Format. You Ignored All of Them.” ⟡

The definitive archive of all disability disclosures, sent to dozens of UK officials — now indexed, timestamped, and submitted as a formal master record.

Filed: 1 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/UKGOV/DISABILITY-CORE-02
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-01-01_SWANK_Master_DisabilityNotification_CompleteEmailRecord.pdf
This document consolidates every known email disclosure of medical exemption, PTSD, Eosinophilic Asthma, and verbal disability boundaries — issued by Polly Chromatic on behalf of herself and her four disabled children.


I. What Happened

Between 2023 and 2025, Polly Chromatic issued over 100 individual notifications to a wide matrix of public officials, including:

  • Westminster City Council

  • NHS Trusts and consultants

  • Social Work England

  • Police and safeguarding coordinators

  • External legal departments and ombudsman services

Every communication confirmed her medical limitations, requested accommodations, and documented systemic retaliation.


II. What the Record Establishes

  • Absolute institutional awareness of all disabilities involved

  • Consistent refusals to respect medical boundaries

  • Systemic misuse of safeguarding to override protected needs

  • A pattern of retaliatory intrusion after lawful documentation

  • A legally admissible timeline of wilful misconduct


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because repeating yourself to power is not a weakness — it's evidence.
Because this document ends the lie that “we didn’t know.”
Because every ignored email is now a page number,
and every disability violation has a digital receipt.


IV. Violations

  • Breach of the Equality Act 2010 (s.6, s.15, s.20–21, s.149)

  • Negligence and psychological harm under civil law

  • Breach of Human Rights (Article 8 – Family Life; Article 14 – Non-discrimination)

  • Failure to follow statutory safeguarding protocols in disability contexts

  • Suppression of medically exempt communication methods (verbal exemption)


V. SWANK’s Position

This record doesn’t just prove misconduct.
It proves foreknowledge — and thus, intent.

It proves that Polly Chromatic didn’t “refuse” to engage.
She wrote, emailed, notified, cited law, attached diagnosis — and was met with harassment.
Now those harassers face something else:
A permanent, public archive with their names on every page.


⟡ 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.

When Everyone’s Been Notified, Every Violation Becomes Intentional.



⟡ “Everyone Was Told. No One Complied.” ⟡

A formal Bates-stamped log of disability notifications, distributed to Westminster, NHS, Social Work England, and police — spanning medical, legal, and safeguarding systems.

Filed: 1 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/UKGOV/DISABILITY-CORE-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-01-01_SWANK_DisabilityNotifications_Multisystem_InactionRecord.pdf
An indexed archive of documented disability disclosures and institutional awareness — systematically ignored. This core record forms the factual basis for civil and international rights violations.


I. What Happened

Over the course of 2023–2025, Polly Chromatic issued a series of formal notifications concerning:

  • Verbal exemption due to muscle dysphonia

  • Eosinophilic Asthma and breathing restrictions

  • PTSD and institutional trauma

  • Her caregiving role for four disabled U.S. citizen children

  • The impact of coercive safeguarding intrusions

The notifications were sent to:

  • Westminster Children’s Services

  • NHS clinicians (multiple trusts)

  • Social Work England

  • Police safeguarding units

  • Oversight bodies and legal departments

All entries in the document are timestamped, recipient-specific, and sequentially Bates-stamped.


II. What the Record Establishes

  • Total visibility of disability status by all involved institutions

  • Chronological proof of repeated medical notification

  • Evidence that “no one knew” is not legally viable

  • Structural failure to act on reasonable adjustments

  • Grounds for civil liability, professional referral, and diplomatic intervention


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because telling someone you’re disabled should matter.
Because “they didn’t know” is no longer true.
Because once they’ve been notified — and they retaliate anyway —
that’s no longer error. That’s policy.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010: Sections 6, 15, 19, 20, and 21

  • Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149)

  • Children Act 1989 (parenting disruption and child harm)

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

  • Civil torts: negligence, harassment, emotional distress


V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a document.
It is proof of foreknowledge.
It makes every retaliatory visit, every safeguarding threat, every ignored plea
a choice — not a mistake.

And now that choice has a timestamp.
A stamp number.
A PDF.

And a public 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.

The Quiet Collapse of Duty: NHS Watches While the Parent Schedules the Rescue.



⟡ “Three Children. One Mother. No System.” ⟡

The hospital never called. So the mother emailed — again — to offer all available times.

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-06
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_Email_Reid_DisabledChildrenRespiratoryConcern_VisitCoordination.pdf
An exhausted but composed email to Dr Philip Reid reveals ongoing respiratory concerns in three of the author’s disabled U.S. citizen children, and institutional reliance on her willingness to self-schedule crisis care.


I. What Happened

On 21 November 2024, Polly Chromatic emailed Dr. Reid requesting an appointment for three of her children: Heir, Kingdom, and Prerogative — all showing signs of respiratory distress.

  • Heir had been in critical condition earlier

  • Kingdom was deteriorating

  • Prerogative, though improving, remained unwell

The tone was calm. The message was clear:

“I can come in whenever you want.”

The email ended with a reminder that she would take them to A&E if needed — a threat disguised as grace.
She copied Kirsty Hornal and Laura Savage for accountability.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Escalating respiratory symptoms in three vulnerable children

  • Lack of proactive scheduling by the consultant

  • Reliance on the mother’s flexibility and silence

  • Documentation of worsening conditions and clinical concern

  • Continued disregard for parental disability and family burden


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because one mother shouldn’t be scheduling her own child’s emergency care.
Because she shouldn’t have to follow up — again — when her children can’t breathe.
Because this isn’t parenting — it’s triage.


IV. Violations

  • Duty of care breach by NHS (Reid) through delay and non-response

  • Passive safeguarding neglect by WCC (Hornal)

  • Breach of disability recognition protocols (verbal exemption ignored)

  • Systemic failure to implement proactive health interventions

  • Undue burden on a disabled caregiver to manage three vulnerable patients alone


V. SWANK’s Position

There is no drama in this email.
Only danger.

It documents three children at risk —
and a mother offering to make herself available
at any time
on any day
to a system that refuses to call her back.


⟡ 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 Refusal to Read Is Institutional



⟡ “I've Been Saying the Same Thing for Ten Years and No One Wants to Read or Listen” ⟡
A Multi-Agency Notification of Disability That Was Met With Silence — and Then Retaliation

Filed: 10 January 2025
Reference: SWANK/MULTIAGENCY/DISABILITY-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-01-10_SWANK_Email_DisabilityNotifications_MultiAgency.pdf
Multi-recipient disability disclosure covering panic disorder, eosinophilic asthma, and muscle dysphonia, sent as written-only adjustment notice and medical accommodation request.


I. What Happened

On 10 January 2025, Polly Chromatic (then using her legal name) sent multiple formal notifications of disability to representatives at RBKC and Westminster Children’s Services, including Glen Peache, Kirsty Hornal, Sarah Newman, and others.

These notices were sent via email, citing documented medical conditions — eosinophilic asthmamuscle dysphonia, and panic disorder — alongside clear communication adjustment requests. The messages explicitly stated that verbal contact was not possible and that email-only interactions were essential for health and safety.

Despite being copied to solicitors, school contacts, and a GP, no adjustment was made, and the retaliation escalated.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • πŸ“› Procedural Breach: Multiple agencies failed to respond to disability notifications as formal medical adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

  • πŸ’₯ Human Impact: Ongoing panic attacks, vocal strain, and exacerbation of chronic respiratory illness due to forced verbal interaction and procedural hostility.

  • πŸ”‡ Power Dynamics: The refusal to accommodate written-only communication undermined legal capacity, dignity, and access.

  • πŸ› Institutional Failure: The messages were treated as ignorable personal disclosures, not statutory triggers for safeguarding the sender’s rights.

  • ❌ Unacceptable: Treating medical information from a vulnerable parent as optional reading — and then escalating safeguarding procedures based on their distress.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

This is the moment every subsequent abuse of process became premeditated.

The agencies involved had full, detailed, medically grounded knowledge of Polly Chromatic’s conditions — and chose to ignore it. This email thread is the prima facie evidence of system-wide dereliction: a refusal to understand, adapt, or comply.

It also demonstrates how “reasonable adjustment” is treated as a courtesy, not a legal requirement.
SWANK logs it because it is proof that everything that followed — including court manipulation, voice strain, and retaliatory safeguarding — was done in writing, after being warned.


IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a failure to notice.
It was a decision to dehumanise through silence.

⟡ We do not accept that a parent’s health notice should be read as an inconvenience.
⟡ We do not accept that trauma is “too long to read.”
⟡ We will document every unread email that preceded your unlawful escalation.


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.