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

Kingdom Couldn’t Breathe. The Hospital Couldn’t Be Bothered.


⟡ “He Couldn’t Speak. They Still Said No.” ⟡

The NHS emergency room refused to assess a breathless disabled child — again.

Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/ER-REFUSAL-02
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_Reid_KingdomDeniedCare_ERNeglect_DisabilityHarm.pdf
Time-stamped documentation of Westminster and RBKC’s knowledge of ER refusal, as a disabled U.S. citizen child (Kingdom) is denied urgent medical assessment for respiratory distress and speech loss.

I. What Happened

On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic brought her son Kingdom to the emergency room. He could barely talk, was visibly unwell, and had been pre-cleared by Dr Reid for observation.
They refused to see him.
No triage. No medication. No evaluation.

This was the second time — Heir had also previously been refused.
The pattern was unmistakable. The email documented everything.
It was sent to:

  • Dr Philip Reid (NHS)

  • Kirsty Hornal

  • Sarah Newman

  • Fiona Dias-Saxena

  • Gideon Mpalanyi

And bcc’d to protected evidentiary contacts.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • ER refusal to assess a disabled child with severe symptoms

  • A repeat pattern of medical rejection after earlier complaints

  • Escalation of risk (Kingdom could not speak, was visibly deteriorating)

  • Documented need for steroid and antibiotic consideration

  • Immediate notification of Westminster and RBKC officials

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because refusing to see a child who can’t speak is not a triage decision — it’s premeditated neglect.
Because no parent should ever have to write,

“They are hateful and leave us unable to breathe for months.”
Because institutional cruelty thrives in silence — until it’s posted.

IV. Violations

  • Clinical negligence by ER

  • Passive collusion by Westminster safeguarding

  • Section 20 Equality Act violation (parent’s verbal disability ignored)

  • Breach of duty under Children Act 1989 (refusal to examine sick child)

  • Patterned retaliation for previously filed complaints

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a misunderstanding.
It was a message.

Kingdom was unwell.
Heir had been denied before.
Polly Chromatic is disabled herself.
And still — no duty of care, no response, no accountability.

So now this too is public.
For Kingdom.
For Heir.
For court.

⟡ 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:

The Complaint Loop Is a Weapon. Posting Is a Shield.


⟡ “I Won’t Make the Police Report You Asked Me To — I’m Too Busy Posting It.” ⟡

The hospital tells the police to tell the mother to submit a complaint — so the hospital can report her for doing so.

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/MET-LOOP-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_Email_Reid_MetPoliceRefusal_HospitalRetaliationCycle.pdf
A disabled parent declines to participate in a retaliatory hospital-police feedback loop and chooses public evidence over private complaint channels.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic received a boilerplate response from the Metropolitan Police telling her to “contact the hospital” or "Patient Advice Liaison."
She refused.

She explained why, in writing:
• The hospital retaliates when she doesn’t report them
• The police refuse to investigate abuse
• The complaint system is a trap

So she sent the truth.
Not to the hospital.
Not to the ombudsman.
To everyone.

And she posted it all online.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Direct evidence of retaliatory institutional complaint mechanics

  • NHS weaponisation of safeguarding and complaint loops

  • Police refusal to investigate medical abuse

  • Parent declaring formal withdrawal from coercive channels

  • WCC, NHS, and legal representatives cc’d for evidentiary trail

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when a system requires you to report yourself in order to survive it —
it’s no longer a health service.

Because truth shouldn’t require a trigger warning.
Because the only effective complaints mechanism left…
is publication.

IV. Violations

  • Institutional retaliation and false-report laundering

  • Violation of disability rights via procedural coercion

  • Breach of Article 13 ECHR: right to an effective remedy

  • Police refusal to protect a vulnerable American family

  • Emotional injury through deliberate misdirection and refusal

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly stated it clearly:

“I don’t care about the hospital’s dumb complaint process. I just post it all online for the world to see.”

This is not disrespect.
It is documentation — for survival.

And this email will now live in public, forever.

⟡ 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:

The Parent Provided the Care. The State Provided the Silence.


⟡ “We’re Out of Breath, But Still More Competent Than You.” ⟡
Two disabled American children. One disabled American parent. No help — just a politely ignored email.

Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/NHS/EMAIL-05
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_Email_Reid_RespiratoryCrisis_NHSPassivity.pdf
An unhinged act of maternal competence, sent to a consultant, a safeguarding team, and the abyss.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic documented a respiratory emergency affecting her children, Heir and Kingdom. Oxygen was low. Airflow was laboured. The parent was administering albuterol treatments and requesting a next-morning consultation — while managing fear, trauma, and institutional betrayal.

Rather than call emergency services, she wrote an email. Not out of indifference, but because she already knew the hospital was dangerous.

She even copied Kirsty Hornal and Laura Savage. They did not respond.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Oxygen saturation concerns for two U.S. citizen children

  • Repeated systemic neglect in past emergencies

  • The emotional calculus of choosing to breathe at home rather than suffer retaliation at hospital

  • A safeguarding team’s refusal to treat this as urgent

  • A medical system that watches instead of acts

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because silence is not neutrality.
Because emailing for help should not be a gamble.
Because no child should have to cough while their mother drafts proof.

And because the state read this email… and shrugged.

IV. Violations

  • Passive neglect by both NHS and Westminster social care

  • Breach of Section 20 Equality Act: verbal disability ignored

  • Human rights breach: Article 3 (degrading treatment) and Article 8 (family life)

  • Retaliatory abandonment following previous complaints

  • Medical risk escalation caused by institutional inaction

V. SWANK’s Position

Polly asked for help —
clearly, clinically, and with evidence.

They offered no adjustment.
No medical plan.
No reply.

Just breathless children and archived neglect.

So here it is.
In writing.
Forever.

⟡ 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