“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 child endangerment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child endangerment. Show all posts

The ER Staff Are Not Defenders of Life. They Are Defenders of Ego


๐Ÿ–‹ ๐’ฎ๐’ฒ๐’œ๐’ฉ๐’ฆ Dispatch | 22 November 2024

“King Couldn’t Breathe, and They Couldn’t Be Bothered.”
Filed Under: Emergency Neglect · Paediatric Respiratory Harm · Institutional Cruelty · NHS Defensive Culture · SWANK London Ltd

๐Ÿฉบ A Child in Distress. A System in Denial.

Dear Dr Reid,

“I took King to the emergency room this morning and they refused to see him at all…”

No clinical examination.
No diagnostic listening.
Not even a gesture toward medical duty.

King — my child — stood before them visibly unwell, barely able to speak, and was turned away like an inconvenience.

“King is very sick and can barely even talk.”
But in this institution, that does not qualify him for care.
Why?

Because we do not collapse politely.
We speak — and they resent that.

๐ŸŽญ What NHS Defensiveness Looks Like in Practice

“They act so defensive as though I’m going to argue with them.”
Because argument, to them, is a mother who knows too much.
Because knowledge, for them, is a threat — not an asset.

This isn’t healthcare. It’s a gatekeeping ritual.
Conducted by staff more concerned with their own pride than a child’s oxygen saturation.

“They are hateful and leave us unable to breathe for months.”
That is not embellishment.
It is timeline.

Cumulative, compounding, recorded.

A hospital that treats concern as defiance, and a sick child as a disruption to its image.

๐Ÿ‘จ‍⚕️ Referral Request – Clinical Urgency, Not Performance Management

“King definitely needs to be checked by Dr Reid…”
Because you don’t require submission to provide care.
Because you listen. Because you treat.

And because elsewhere, clinical judgment has been replaced by procedural vanity.

๐Ÿ“ Filed While Monitoring a Child the NHS Refused to See
๐’ซ๐‘œ๐“๐“๐“Ž ๐’ž๐’ฝ๐“‡๐‘œ๐“‚๐’ถ๐“‰๐’พ๐’ธ, Paediatric Advocate, Medical Gatekeeper, Archival Witness
✉ director@swanklondon.com | ๐ŸŒ www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Breathlessness Logged.


No comments:

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
๐Ÿ“Ž 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.

Let the record show:

The child was harmed.
The mother collapsed.
The footage was lost.
The system protected itself.
And SWANK — filed every second they tried to erase.

This is not about CCTV.
It is about how institutions curate memory to protect themselves from truth.




No comments:

£2.1 Million in Damages for One Doctor’s Shrug


⟡ The Professor Who Let Me Suffocate ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/BRANLEY-NEGLIGENCE
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_ProfHowardBranley_RespiratoryNegligence_DisabilityDismissal_£2.1MClaim.pdf

I. £2.1 Million in Damages for One Doctor’s Shrug

This formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) documents the clinical negligence of Professor Howard Branley, a consultant respiratory physician who:

  • Ignored documented diagnoses of Eosinophilic Asthma

  • Failed to respond to repeated episodes of respiratory collapse

  • Refused to initiate safeguarding referrals after observing abuse markers

  • Breached ethical duty by erasing disability evidence at the point of care

His silence became a ventilatory risk.
His prestige became his alibi.

II. The Clinic Was a Courtroom. He Withheld the Defence.

Professor Branley’s actions included:

  • Withholding diagnoses despite clinical evidence

  • Mischaracterising a patient with known PTSD and dysphonia

  • Failing to protect a child present during critical appointments

  • Issuing no follow-up plan despite acute respiratory dysfunction

This was not forgetfulness.
This was procedural euthanasia of care — dressed in NHS letterhead.

He chose to believe policy over pulse oximetry.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability dismissal is not just medical error — it is a civil harm with clinical fingerprints.
Because when elite doctors enable procedural abuse through omission, litigation is the only second opinion that counts.
Because gaslighting a respiratory collapse is not a metaphor — it’s a claimable event.

Let the record show:

  • The negligence was recorded

  • The child witnessed it

  • The evidence was preserved

  • And SWANK — filed it with statutory demand and monetary notation

This wasn’t a missed referral.
It was medical abandonment in silk tie and consultant tone.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit medical hierarchies to override duty of care.
We do not accept diagnostic omission as a form of plausible deniability.
We do not believe that a professor’s letterhead justifies silence.

Let the record show:

The patient was disabled.
The child was endangered.
The doctor was informed.
And SWANK — filed for £2.1 million.

This isn’t a clinical error.
It’s a valuation of institutional failure — costed, formatted, and notarised.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions