๐ชSWANK LONDON LTD.
LOI — The Therapist Who Withdrew Her Tongue
Filed Date: 28 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-LOI-LW-0801
PDF Filename: 2025-07-28_LOI_LIZWHITE_DISABILITYDISREGARD_AND_RETALIATIONCHAIN.pdf
1-line Summary:
Criminal prosecution filed against Harley Street psychologist Dr. Liz White for clinical abandonment, disability discrimination, and silent complicity in procedural retaliation.
IN THE MATTER OF CLINICAL COLLAPSE, SAFEGUARDING COMPLICITY, AND THE CHOREOGRAPHY OF COWARDICE
Regina v White, For Willfully Vanishing When Her Patient Became Politically Inconvenient
I. What Happened
Dr. Liz White was retained as a private clinical psychologist to assist a mother suffering from PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and procedural collapse triggered by sustained safeguarding abuse. She was paid, protected, and presented with full documentation — including police reports, medical records, and proof of institutional misconduct.
Then she went silent.
Under pressure from Westminster social workers and the institutional smear campaign that followed, Dr. White withdrew care without notice, refused all lawful communication adjustments, and vanished entirely from the clinical record, leaving a disabled mother and four medically vulnerable children without support as the family was dismantled.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Dr. White abandoned her patient without providing documentation, referral, or therapeutic exit;
She refused written-only communication despite knowing the patient suffered from voice loss and PTSD;
She ignored legal correspondence, police reports, and safeguarding falsehoods that she had a clinical and moral obligation to address;
She actively colluded by omission with local authority misconduct by withholding therapeutic advocacy at a critical time;
She received formal notice, an HCPC complaint, and was named in civil filings — and still chose silence.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because even silence is a weapon when wielded by a clinician.
SWANK asserts that Dr. White's professional withdrawal was not ethical neutrality — it was strategic complicity. Her refusal to document, support, or acknowledge lawful and urgent disclosures directly contributed to the harm now under investigation across multiple jurisdictions.
In times of political retaliation and health-based targeting, mental health professionals are called to be protective witnesses. Dr. White chose proximity to power over her patient. That is not therapeutic discretion. That is procedural betrayal.
IV. Violations
Misconduct in Public Office (via quasi-public role within safeguarding chain)
Section 15 and 20, Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination arising from disability and refusal to accommodate
Negligent psychological abandonment
Failure to act under duty of care
Complicity in safeguarding retaliation
V. SWANK’s Position
Dr. White represents a class of practitioners who decorate the language of care but flee when care becomes controversial. She was not overpowered — she was invited to choose, and she chose procedural invisibility over patient duty.
The Record now stands corrected. Let this filing serve as both a judicial act and a ceremonial declaration:
Clinical cowardice is not ethically neutral. It is harm, dressed in a white coat.
Filed By:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
Litigant in Person and Daughter of Professors Who Know Better
⚖️ 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.