A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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 duty of care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label duty of care. Show all posts

In re: The Asthmatic Distress of Bureaucratic Air


⟡ The Medical Neglect Telegram II ⟡

Filed: 8 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/MEDICAL-NEGLECT
Download: 2025-10-08_SWANK_EmergencyNotification_Westminster_AsthmaCrisis.pdf
Summary: Formal emergency alert to Westminster Children’s Services reporting respiratory distress and unmanaged asthma in a child under local authority care.

I. What Happened

At supervised contact on 8 October 2025, the Director measured her son King Bonnee Annee Simlett’s peak-flow at 160 L/min, down from his normal 360 L/min, with a pulse of 104 bpm and visible respiratory exhaustion.

The foster carers, acting under Westminster’s authority, failed to recognise or respond to this clinical crisis.
No ambulance was called, and no physician was consulted.

The Director therefore filed a formal emergency notification to Westminster, the Metropolitan Police, and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, asserting medical neglect and requesting immediate A&E intervention.

II. What the Document Establishes

  • A verified clinical reading evidencing respiratory distress in a child with chronic asthma.

  • Failure of safeguarding duty by carers and caseworkers despite clear danger.

  • Multi-agency escalation: The message was copied to all relevant oversight bodies including NHS Trust safeguarding, Ofsted, Social Work England, and the Family Court.

  • Correct legal basis: Communication issued under the Equality Act 2010 and pursuant to injunction order M03CL193, restricting all contact to director@swanklondon.com.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because oxygen, like justice, should not depend on bureaucracy.
This entry records not just a medical crisis but a systems failure in real time — where every professional copied bore statutory duty and yet none replied.
SWANK archives this moment as both evidence and indictment: the email that begged an empire to breathe.

IV. Violations Cited

  • Children Act 1989 §22(3) – failure to safeguard and promote welfare.

  • Children Act 1989 §47 – failure to investigate risk of significant harm.

  • Equality Act 2010 §20 – failure to accommodate disability-related communication.

  • UK GDPR Article 5(1)(f) – unlawful handling of personal data contrary to injunction.

  • NHS Safeguarding Policy (2019) – failure to act on clinical warning signs.

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. regards this emergency notification as an unanswered summons of duty.
Each copied recipient is now bound to the record by their silence.
When a child’s lungs become a legal exhibit, the question is no longer “Who failed?” but “Who read and did nothing?”

This file remains open until verified confirmation of medical intervention is received.
Every breath unacknowledged is a paragraph unwritten.

Filed by: Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
director@swanklondon.com

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

Your Email Has Been Filed — In a Folder Marked Irrelevant


⟡ “We’re Not Instructed”—So We’ll Just File It Ourselves ⟡
The Folder Where Urgency Goes to Die: Blackfords LLP and the Misclassification of Crisis as Inconvenience

Filed: 3 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/BLACKFORDS/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-03-03_Email_Blackfords_NotInstructed_Response_EvidenceNotice.pdf
Solicitor email confirming receipt of N1 claim but disclaiming professional obligation due to lack of instruction.

I. What Happened

On 3 March 2025, following the formal submission of an N1 civil claim against NHS defendants, Polly Chromatic(operating through SWANK London Ltd.) emailed solicitor Simon O’Meara of Blackfords LLP, notifying him of the court filing and associated evidence uploads.

His reply, though courteous, clarified that Blackfords was not instructed — and that her emails were now diverted to a separate folder due to volume. She was additionally asked not to copy in another solicitor “so as to avoid confusion.”

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • ⚖️ Procedural Breach: Treating legal correspondence regarding an active court claim as administratively negligible.

  • 😷 Human Impact: Undermines communication adjustments for disabled claimants — especially those with written-only capacity.

  • 📉 Power Dynamics: Declining involvement post-filing destabilizes vulnerable litigants and conceals disengagement behind “procedure.”

  • 🚨 Institutional Failure: Legal professionals’ inbox filtering becomes an opaque mechanism for abandoning duty.

  • 🚫 Unacceptable: Redirecting urgent legal documentation to a dead folder — while citing “volume” — is not a defensible practice.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This interaction is a textbook case of administrative deflection as reputational management: polite in tone, but indifferent in effect.

In a field where timing, clarity, and protection matter most, this kind of “we’re not instructed” response is not neutral — it’s structurally dangerous.

SWANK logged this because it illustrates the passive mechanics of abandonment, particularly for medically vulnerable claimants operating alone.

This is not legal disengagement. It is legal filtration — and SWANK documents every filter.

IV. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t courtesy.
It was institutional airbrushing of accountability.

⟡ We do not accept filing systems that bury urgency under admin volume.
⟡ We do not accept legal disengagement dressed as politeness.
⟡ We will document every folder marked “not our problem.”

⟡ 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: