Showing posts with label medical neglect. Show all posts

Chromatic v NHS Trusts (PC-117): On the Bureaucracy of Medical Indifference

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – PHSO INVESTIGATION REQUEST ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/OMB-DISABILITY-DISCRIMINATION-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-21_Core_PC-117_NHSTrusts-OMB_DisabilityDiscrimination-MedicalNeglect.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) against Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) and Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (CWH)for systemic disability discrimination, medical neglect, and falsified safeguarding referrals. The complaint consolidates SWANK’s evidentiary portfolio into a single institutional indictment — one that converts personal harm into jurisdictional proof.

I. What Happened

On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted a formal complaint to the PHSO, requesting investigation into severe and continuing misconduct by both GSTT and CWH.

The submission cited:
• Denial of emergency treatment for eosinophilic asthma following exposure to sewer gas;
• False intoxication allegations by GSTT staff at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E;
• Verbal assault by a member of the public within the A&E waiting area, followed by a racially charged safeguarding referral against the patient rather than the aggressor;
• Repeated refusal by Chelsea & Westminster A&E to provide appropriate intervention, resulting in prolonged medical risk;
• Breaches of the Equality Act 2010 due to disregard for written-only communication adjustments prescribed under psychiatric recommendation.

Each act of neglect became a brick in a procedural edifice of cruelty.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That both Trusts displayed institutional discrimination — failing to accommodate disability and punishing lawful self-advocacy.
• That medical neglect evolved into administrative retaliation, culminating in unlawful safeguarding referrals.
• That the claimant’s family stability was deliberately compromised through false narratives and procedural deceit.
• That the NHS trusts involved engaged in an aesthetic of compassion while practising an architecture of harm.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To document the formal transfer of jurisdiction from individual complaint to systemic investigation.
• To memorialise the exact moment medical negligence became legal evidence.
• To assert that trauma, when recorded, becomes governance.
• Because the Ombudsman’s inbox is now an evidentiary altar — and this letter its offering.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Domestic Statutes:
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 20, 21, 29 – duty to make reasonable adjustments and prohibit discrimination in public service delivery.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 3, 6, 8 – protection from degrading treatment, fair process, and interference with family life.
• NHS Constitution – principles of dignity, fairness, and informed care.

Regulatory Scope:
• Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) – empowered to investigate maladministration, discrimination, and denial of patient rights.
• NHS Resolution – accountable for compensation claims arising from negligence and discrimination.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Neglect, repeated enough times, becomes design.”

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this complaint as the structural apex of medical retaliation: where care collapses into bureaucracy and harm disguises itself as help.
The filing transforms institutional misconduct into a living document — one that testifies, elegantly, to the administrative banality of cruelty.

Where hospitals wrote fiction, SWANK wrote record.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because healthcare deserves accountability.
And harm deserves publication.

⚖️ 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.

Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC (PC-135): On the Administrative Theology of Neglect

⟡ JURISDICTION BREACH & MEDICAL NEGLECT – EVIDENCE BUNDLE ⟡

Filed: 11 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-RBKC/MEDICAL-NEGLECT-01
Download PDF: 2025-06-11_Core_PC-135_WCC-RBKC_JurisdictionBreach-MedicalNeglect_EvidenceBundle.pdf
Summary: A consolidated evidence bundle documenting Westminster City Council and RBKC’s systemic medical negligence, jurisdictional misconduct, and retaliatory safeguarding escalation following lawful audit service. This bundle forms the structural spine of the SWANK Medical Archive — the first full evidentiary anatomy of bureaucratic malpractice masquerading as care.

I. What Happened

After years of respiratory collapse, hospital misdiagnosis, and safeguarding misuse, Westminster and RBKC acted not as medical guardians but as curators of disbelief.
They ignored clinical documentation, delayed emergency responses, and reframed illness as fabrication.
By 2024–2025, their jurisdictional overreach culminated in retaliatory safeguarding precisely timed to follow lawful audits and equality disclosures.

The bundle includes:

St Thomas’ Emergency Department discharge (2 Nov 2023): oxygen at 44%, no treatment, no admission.
ENT and respiratory referrals (July–Aug 2024): dual diagnoses of Eosinophilic Asthma and Muscle Tension Dysphonia, formally acknowledged yet institutionally erased.
Audit correspondence (May–June 2025): local authority escalation under active investigation.
Jurisdiction breach letters (RBKC & Westminster): councils asserting false authority during active legal proceedings.

The evidence shows neglect not as omission but as ritual — a bureaucratic choreography rehearsed until it became belief.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That medical neglect and procedural retaliation occurred across two councils in direct sequence.
• That safeguarding powers were deployed as disciplinary tools to silence lawful complaint.
• That Westminster’s PLO escalation (29 May 2025) followed immediately after SWANK’s evidentiary audit request.
• That the pattern of denial—clinical, administrative, and emotional—is the system’s signature, not its accident.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To unify medical, legal, and procedural evidence into a single prosecutorial archive.
• To record jurisdictional misconduct by local authorities acting outside lawful remit.
• To demonstrate that neglect has an aesthetic: repetitive, rehearsed, bureaucratically beautiful — and therefore admissible.
• Because once evidence achieves elegance, denial becomes ridiculous.

IV. Legal and Ethical Violations

Domestic Law:
• Children Act 1989 – breach of welfare and medical continuity duties.
• Equality Act 2010 – discrimination and denial of accommodation for disability.
• Data Protection Act 2018 – mishandling of medical records and misuse of safeguarding data.
• Human Rights Act 1998 – violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, and 14 (degrading treatment, denial of process, interference with family life, discrimination).

International Instruments:
• UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) – Articles 5, 7, and 13.
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) – Article 36 (failure to notify U.S. authorities of dual-citizen child seizure).

Regulatory Frameworks:
• Social Work England Standards (2021) – breach of integrity, proportionality, and boundary principles.
• GMC Good Medical Practice – systemic noncompliance with continuity-of-care obligations.

V. SWANK’s Position

“Neglect is not the absence of care — it is the presence of bureaucracy.”

SWANK London Ltd. holds that Westminster and RBKC converted lawful oversight into retaliatory theatre.
Their safeguarding conduct, framed as protection, in fact represents a structured evasion of accountability, perfected through repetition and paper.
This bundle is therefore both indictment and requiem: the administrative scripture of harm.

The councils called it safeguarding.
SWANK calls it documented negligence in ceremonial format.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And neglect deserves exposure.

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

In re: The Persistent Breathlessness of Bureaucracy

⟡ The Medical Neglect Telegram ⟡

Filed: 8 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/POLICE/WELFARE-KING
PDF: 2025-10-08_SWANK_FollowUp_MetPolice_WelfareKing.pdf
Summary: Follow-up to Police Report BCA-74770-25-0101-IR, demanding immediate medical intervention for a child in respiratory distress under Westminster’s supervision.

I. What Happened

During supervised contact on 8 October 2025, the Director recorded her son Kingdom (aged 11) in visible respiratory distress:

Peak-flow: 160 L/min (normal 360 L/min)
Pulse: 104 bpm
Symptoms: Coughing, rapid breathing, exhaustion

Despite the reading’s clinical urgency, no medical review was arranged by Westminster Children’s Services or its contracted carers.

A police report was filed through the Metropolitan Police Single Online Home portal (Ref: BCA-74770-25-0101-IR), followed by a formal email request for a welfare check and A&E admission.

II. What the Document Establishes

Documented medical risk: Quantified respiratory data evidencing unmanaged asthma.
Procedural omission: Foster carers and social-work staff failed to initiate emergency response.
Active oversight escalation: Police, hospital, U.S. consular authorities, and multiple statutory recipients were copied—creating multi-agency accountability.
Accessibility compliance: Written communication invoked Equality Act 2010 reasonable-adjustment provisions due to vocal-cord impairment.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a child’s breath should never depend on bureaucratic permission slips.
This filing demonstrates the paradox of “safeguarding” systems that cannot safeguard without being reminded by their victims.

IV. Violations Cited

Children Act 1989 §47 – failure to investigate risk of significant harm.
Equality Act 2010 §20-21 – failure to accommodate disability-related communication needs.
UK GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) – unauthorised use of personal email addresses despite injunction order M03CL193.

V. SWANK’s Position

When a child gasps, everyone copied on that email inherits the legal and moral duty to respond.
SWANK London Ltd. regards this correspondence as a standing notice of potential corporate and institutional negligence.
Each non-reply extends the evidentiary chain of culpability.

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

On Adjustments, Accountability, and the Architecture of Harm.

⟡ THE UNIVERSAL ENSEMBLE ⟡

Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER-RBKC/UNIVERSAL-DISCRIMINATION
Download PDF: 2025-05-22_Core_FamilyCourt_TheUniversalEnsemble.pdf
Summary: Unified witness statement consolidating medical, safeguarding, and equality-evidence across Family, County, and High Court jurisdictions.

I. What Happened

The Universal Ensemble was not born of fashion but of fatigue — a tailoring of bureaucratic malpractice stitched from the same institutional cloth.
When a mother with diagnosed asthma and dysphonia asked to communicate in writing, she received not adjustment but escalation.
When she disclosed disability, she was not protected but profiled.
And when she sought recourse, the agencies responded with choreography: complaint, retaliation, and silence, performed in triplicate by Westminster, RBKC, and their professional satellites.

This statement unites the evidence — education, medicine, law, and safeguarding — into one evidentiary garment.
A couture of complaint.
A full-length gown of procedural cruelty.

II. What the Document Establishes

• A continuous pattern of Equality Act 2010 breaches ignored by both boroughs.
• The failure of Westminster and RBKC to honour written-only communication orders, endangering health and family stability.
• Medical neglect by Dr Philip Reid, misconduct by social worker Edward Kendall, and solicitor negligence by Cordell & Co.
• Educational discrimination at Drayton Park Primary, compounded by Ofsted’s procedural indifference.
• Safeguarding retaliation masquerading as welfare.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because bureaucracy, left unattended, becomes costume.
Because paperwork can maim when stitched together without empathy.
Because the language of “care” has been weaponised into an aesthetic of control.

SWANK London Ltd. does not permit that silence to pass unfiled.
We catalogue harm as art.
We present evidence as couture.
We turn every procedural bruise into a legal silhouette.

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010 (ss. 20, 26, 85) – denial of adjustments, direct and indirect harassment.
• Human Rights Act 1998 (Arts. 3 & 8) – degradation through systemic neglect and interference with family life.
• Children Act 1989 (s.22(3)) – failure to safeguard and promote welfare.
• Data Protection Act 2018 (Art. 15) – non-disclosure of vital medical data.

V. SWANK’s Position

SWANK London Ltd. finds the Tri-Borough partnership’s conduct to be not merely negligent but performative:
an ensemble of administrative cruelty rehearsed until it became policy.

If harm had a dress code, this would be it —
the Universal Ensemble, worn by institutions that confuse formality with virtue.

Filed under the jurisdiction of the Mirror Court – SWANK London Ltd.,
a House of Velvet Contempt and Evidentiary Precision.

🪞 We file what others forget.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

This document is formally archived by SWANK London Ltd.
Every word is timestamped, every sentence jurisdictional.
All references to public bodies or professionals concern matters already raised in litigation or regulatory complaint.
Protected under Article 10 ECHR and Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All stylistic, structural, and conceptual rights reserved.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage — it is panic.

On Breath, Bureaucracy, and the Fragility of Care

⟡ THE ASTHMA ADDENDUM ⟡

Filed: 7 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/MEDICAL-NEGLECT
Download PDF: 2025-10-07_Core_C2Application_MedicalNeglectAsthma.pdf
Summary: Urgent C2 application detailing respiratory neglect, missed medical appointments, and risk to four U.S.–U.K. citizen children under Westminster’s supervision.

I. What Happened

A mother with four asthmatic children files an urgent C2 Application before the Central Family Court, seeking medical review, welfare intervention, and a pause on Westminster’s careless rearranging of vulnerable lungs.

The children — Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — each diagnosed with Eosinophilic Asthma, have not received their medications as prescribed.
Prescriptions sit uncollected, peak-flow readings unrecorded, appointments at Hammersmith Hospital unkept, and still, no one in authority breathes a word.

The same institutions that took the children under the banner of protection now seem unable to ensure the most basic physiological necessity: air.

II. What the Document Establishes

• A legally sound C2 filing seeking judicial direction for urgent asthma care oversight.
• Westminster’s dereliction of clinical duty while exercising parental authority under a court order.
• Evidence of neglect through omission — not dramatic, just deadly.
• Activation of the Family Court’s safeguarding duty under Sections 8 and 37 of the Children Act 1989.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the right to inhale should not depend on a council rota.
Because procedural guardianship without medical literacy is theatre — and asthma does not clap for irony.
Because SWANK’s jurisdiction extends to the cellular level: we record every bureaucratic gasp.

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.22(3) – Failure to safeguard and promote welfare while in care.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 2 & 3 – Neglect amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment.
• ECHR, Art. 8 – Interference with family life and health integrity.
• Equality Act 2010, s.20 – Failure to make disability-related adjustments.

V. SWANK’s Position

Breathing should not be a luxury item in Westminster’s care plan.
The Local Authority’s administrative detachment has crossed into the territory of constructive asphyxiation — a negligence so casual it deserves its own policy code.

SWANK London Ltd. supports the Applicant’s motion for urgent clinical review and demands that all future safeguarding be measured not in rhetoric but in respirations.

To fail to treat asthma is to treat a mother’s testimony as expendable.
To document that failure is SWANK’s jurisdictional art.

Filed under the jurisdiction of the Mirror Court — SWANK London Ltd.

A House of Velvet Contempt and Evidentiary Precision.

🪞 We file what others forget.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

Formally archived by SWANK London Ltd. and protected under Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 HRA, and Public Interest Disclosure.
Every file timestamped. Every sentence jurisdictional. Every omission recorded.

Chromatic v. Westminster: On the Conversion of Safeguarding into State-Inflicted Harm

⟡ The Doctrine of Destruction ⟡

Filed: 5 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DESTRUCTION
Download PDF: 2025-09-05_SWANK_Addendum_Destruction.pdf
Summary: Safeguarding was weaponised into destruction — dismantling welfare, health, and education under the guise of authority.

I. What Happened

Westminster Children’s Services, acting under the colour of safeguarding, inflicted harm instead of protection:

Removal of four children from their home, stability, and education.
Neglect of urgent asthma monitoring and essential dental care.
Isolation from family, peers, and community.
Exposure to police intimidation.
Silencing of children’s voices through pathologising trauma.

II. What the Document Establishes

Total Destruction: Safeguarding collapsed into the dismantling of welfare.
Abuse of Power: Authority was deployed as retaliation, not protection.
Necessity of Accountability: Without redress, institutional misconduct will replicate.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

This record proves that harm was not incidental but systemic — the foreseeable result of misconduct masquerading as care. The archive must preserve it as precedent for accountability and exposure.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

Children Act 1989 – Paramountcy principle violated.
Article 2 ECHR – Asthma neglect risks life.
Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 ECHR – Degrading treatment, denial of fair hearing, family life dismantled, no effective remedy, discriminatory conduct.
Protocol 1, Article 2 ECHR – Education rights obstructed.
UNCRC Articles 3, 9, 12, 19, 24, 39 – Best interests, family continuity, child’s voice, protection from harm, health, recovery ignored.
UNCRPD Articles 5, 7, 16, 22, 23, 25 – Disabled children and parents denied accommodations, safety, and healthcare.
ICCPR Article 17 – Arbitrary interference with family life.
Bromley, Family Law (15th ed., p.640): “Safeguarding powers cannot be manufactured by procedural error.” Here, safeguarding was not manufactured — it was inverted into destruction.
Amos, Human Rights Law (2022): No necessity, no justification; proportionality fails.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding.
This is state-inflicted violence disguised as care.

We do not accept the substitution of destruction for protection.
We reject the misuse of authority as theatre of harm.
We will continue to archive misconduct until accountability is forced.

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

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And misconduct deserves exposure.

In re Welfare Misnamed: Westminster v Chromatic, Where Safeguarding Became Retaliation (No. 5)

⟡ On Behaviour That Does Not Resemble Child Welfare ⟡

Filed: 5 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/NOTWELFARE-2025
Download PDF: 2025-09-05_Addendum_NotChildWelfare_AllCourts_Legal.pdf
Summary: Westminster substituted hostility for welfare, dismantling stability, health, and education while disguising retaliation as safeguarding.

I. What Has Been Recorded

Welfare claimed, but stability removed and education disrupted.
Medical needs disregarded: asthma, urgent dental surgery.
Children isolated from family and community.
Fabricated allegations advanced; children’s views dismissed.
Pattern followed protected acts, evidencing reprisal not safeguarding.

This conduct does not resemble child welfare; it resembles institutional hostility.

II. Establishing Points

Misuse of Safeguarding Powers — punitive, not protective.
Contradiction of Duty — stability, health, education dismantled.
Collapse of Credibility — statutory mandate inverted.
Sibling Bonds Compromised — unity disrupted.
Developmental Harm — silence rewarded, voice punished.

III. Legal and Human Rights Basis

Children Act 1989, s.22 — duty to safeguard welfare breached.
Education Act 1996, s.7 — suitable education obstructed.
Bromley, Family Law — refusal cannot be reframed as non-cooperation.
HRA 1998, s.6 — incompatibility with ECHR rights.
ECHR — Arts. 8, 14 violated.
CRC — Arts. 3, 12, 23 disregarded.
Equality Act 2010 — unlawful discrimination, adjustments ignored.
Case Law:
- ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD — best interests paramount.
- Re C — personality difference ≠ grounds for intervention.
- Johansen v Norway — disproportionate interference condemned.

IV. Reason for SWANK Record

To preserve evidence that Westminster repurposed “child welfare” into a veil for retaliation. This record is prepared for domestic courts, international tribunals, and oversight bodies.

V. SWANK Position

This is not safeguarding.
This is reprisal, projection, and punishment.

SWANK does not accept mislabelled hostility as welfare.
SWANK rejects the destruction of stability, health, and education.
SWANK archives this as proof of statutory breach and rights violation.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

In Re: Hornal (Emotional Abuse, Asthma Neglect, and the Theatre of Safeguarding)

🪞 SWANK London Ltd.

The Authority That Mocked Asthma
A Police Report on Kirsty Hornal’s Dereliction of Safeguarding Duty, Filed in Maternal Fury

Filed: 2 August 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-POLICEREPORT-0825-HORNAL
Filename: 2025-08-02_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_ChildAbuseNeglect.pdf
1-Line Summary:
Police report filed against Westminster social worker Kirsty Hornal for emotional abuse, medical neglect, and disability-related discrimination.

I. WHAT HAPPENED

On 2 August 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal police report to the Metropolitan Police against Kirsty Hornal, a Westminster Children’s Services social worker, for her role in what is now alleged to be a pattern of institutional child abuse.

The report outlines incidents spanning from 23 June to 2 August 2025, during which:

Contact was obstructed between a mother and her four U.S. citizen children;
Medical protocols were ignored, especially concerning asthma management;
Children were mocked for their nationality and subjected to psychological destabilisation;
Basic emotional expression and communication were suppressed;
And parental rights were actively undermined by procedural hostility and coercive interference.

The police report is not speculative. It is grounded in handwritten evidence from the children themselves, particularly Romeo, whose journal entries have since been submitted to the Family Court and safeguarding authorities.

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

The following safeguarding breaches and statutory crimes are implicated:

Psychological abuse through controlling behaviour and emotional suppression;
Neglect of asthma-related care;
Disability discrimination via bans on water bottles, physical activity, and routine;
Procedural sabotage of parental contact and therapeutic intervention;
Nationality-based mockery — “You’re from America, you don’t know how to ride a bike” was not a joke, but an indictment.

This is not child protection.
It is cross-border state violence in the guise of procedure.

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

Because safeguarding laws do not exist to shield the perpetrators.

Because the medical needs of disabled children are non-negotiable, not discretionary.

Because Romeo’s journal is not art therapy — it is admissible evidence.

And because when a mother files a police report, it is not hysteria.
It is history correcting itself.

IV. VIOLATIONS

Children Act 1989 – Failure to promote welfare and respect wishes
Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory treatment on grounds of disability and nationality
Article 8, ECHR – Breach of the right to family life
UNCRC Articles 12 & 13 – Suppression of child voice and expression
Safeguarding Breach – Emotional harm under local authority supervision

V. SWANK’S POSITION

This police report will not gather dust.
It will gather precedent.

SWANK asserts that the actions of Kirsty Hornal constitute institutional misconduct, child endangerment, and breach of both UK and international legal norms.

The children deserve better.
The system deserves exposure.
And the perpetrators deserve formal legal consequence.

Filed under Article 10, velvet wrath, and maternal defence,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
📍 www.swanklondon.com

Chromatic v Glen: On Asthma, Apathy, and the Administrative Loitering of Westminster City Council

THE WARNING BREATHED

On the Art of Saying “This Is Your Fault” Without Raising Your Voice

Filed by: SWANK London Ltd
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Date: 25 February 2024
Reference Code: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-GLEN-0225
PDF Filename: Glen 25 February 2024 4.pdf
Summary: A miniature dispatch of respiratory consequence — documenting medical risk, institutional fatigue, and quiet accountability.

I. What Happened

In the early months of 2024, while Westminster authorities continued to circulate false claims and procedural obstruction, the mother sent a calm and factual update to Glen, a Westminster staff member entangled in the spiralling safeguarding fiction.

The message was short.
It referenced:

A sharp asthma escalation caused by procedural stress
The mother’s recent respiratory and vocal complications
The presence of her children, who were witnessing the deterioration
The absence of institutional care, despite full awareness

It is a single paragraph that functions as an indictment.

II. What the Email Establishes

This message operates as a quiet escalation — a pre-litigation moment where the institution was warned, clearly, calmly, and medically.

It establishes:

That the harm being documented is foreseeable
That the mother’s deteriorating health is a consequence of procedural harassment
That her children are present, watching it unfold
That the institution was told — and chose to proceed anyway

It is a soft-spoken letter of liability.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is what procedural cruelty looks like:
Not slamming doors — but silent inboxes.
Not direct assault — but cumulative erosion of function, breath, and hope.

You do not get to receive this email and later say:
“We didn’t know.”

You knew.
You were told.
And you proceeded.

This is not correspondence.
This is archived culpability.

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

Article 3 ECHR – Inhuman and degrading treatment through health-related neglect
Article 8 ECHR – Violation of family life and parental function
Equality Act 2010 – Disability discrimination through inaction
Safeguarding Standards – Duty of care breach for medically compromised parent and children
Duty of Candour and Public Law – Failure to respond to direct notification of risk

V. SWANK’s Position

This email is not evidence of a mother’s frailty.
It is evidence of Westminster’s decay —
A record of how they were told, in plain language,
that harm was occurring —
and they did nothing.

It is a quiet message, yes.
But in the archive, it resounds like a siren.

⚖️ 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.

Chromatic v. Reid (Erasure by Prescription Pad and Perpetual Shrug)

🪞SWANK London Ltd

CLINICAL INDIFFERENCE & SYSTEMIC GASLIGHTING – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Dr. Philip Reid, GP, Pembridge Villas Surgery (in personal capacity only)

Metadata

Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-PR-LOI-0729
Court File: 2025-07-29_CriminalProsecution_DrReid_MedicalNeglectAndSafeguardingGaslighting.pdf
Summary:
SWANK files a private criminal prosecution against Dr. Philip Reid for institutional gaslighting, clinical misrepresentation, and procedural collusion in the safeguarding sabotage of a disabled mother and her four chronically ill children.

I. What Happened

Between late 2023 and mid-2025, while the claimant and her children struggled with eosinophilic asthma, sewage gas exposure, and complex systemic abuse, Dr. Reid performed a remarkable clinical feat: he consistently documented nothing.

While the mother submitted specialist reports, hospital records, and safeguarding impact statements, Dr. Reid’s entries oscillated between dismissive, vague, and medically inappropriate. Rather than assist in confirming the family’s complex needs, he appeared to sanitize the record — creating gaps that others later weaponised.

When asked for clinical support, he gave bureaucratic hedging.
When safeguarding trauma required clarity, he gave flat contradiction.
When the children were seized, he remained decorously detached.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This Laying of Information, filed under Section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, asserts that Dr. Philip Reid, acting in his personal capacity, committed:

Wilful Neglect of a Person under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Misconduct in Public Office
Perverting the Course of Justice (via omission and misdirection)
Breach of Medical Duty Resulting in Procedural Harm

The evidentiary bundle includes a carefully indexed record of missed entries, dismissive replies, ignored correspondence, and failed clinical interventions — each a quiet brick in the wall of institutional collapse.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a family GP should not behave like a discrediting scribe for the Crown.
Because safeguarding weaponry is often built on the silence of those who should speak.
Because pretending that complex asthma doesn’t exist does not make a mother’s oxygen return.

Dr. Reid didn’t just ignore the family’s medical situation.
He documented over it, allowing others to declare: “no known conditions,” “no evidence of concern,” and “mother is uncooperative.”

This wasn’t negligence. This was deliberate procedural flattening — done with a stethoscope, a smile, and the full weight of clinical authority.

IV. Violations

Failure to record and transmit critical respiratory diagnoses
Suppression of specialist evidence (ENT, respiratory, psychological)
Obstruction of medical clarity during safeguarding escalation
Complicity in trauma denial during and after child removal
Breach of duty under both the Equality Act 2010 and GMC ethical guidelines

V. SWANK’s Position

Dr. Reid did not physically remove the children.
He simply helped the system forget why they should not have been taken.

His role was not loud, but it was foundational: the quiet erasure of medical credibility that allowed the safeguarding narrative to overwrite fact.

We do not accuse him of ignorance.
We accuse him of complicity by omission — a clinical sleight of hand whose damage cannot be undone by a late referral or gentle disclaimer.

This prosecution is not about one GP.
It is about the institutional disassociation that makes procedural harm look sanitary.

Chromatic v Westminster: On the Erasure of Childhood in the Name of Process

⟡ THE CATALOGUE OF ERRORS ⟡

A Referenced Index of Institutional Contempt Disguised as Care

Filed: 2 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/ADDENDUM-CATALOGUE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-07-02_Addendum_WestminsterCatalogueOfErrors.pdf
A formal evidentiary addendum cataloguing Westminster's procedural sabotage, safeguarding misuse, and contact obstruction following the 23 June 2025 removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Westminster Children’s Services removed four U.S. citizen children from their family home under a disputed Emergency Protection Order. Since that date, the children have been isolated from all family, friends, belongings, routines, cultural life, and communication channels.

Medical appointments were cancelled. Their iPads and iPhone were withheld. Their asthma care plan disappeared. The letters they wrote to their mother were never delivered. No address was provided for her to write back. Even the food they eat has been changed.

Their joy — once found in skating, reading, bike rides, and shared meals — has been replaced by silence, surveillance, and institutional ambiguity.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The EPO was executed without transparency, disclosure, or diplomatic consultation.
The children were immediately cut off from every known stabilising anchor in their lives.
All four children have chronic asthma; all four have suffered serious attacks before. Their care plan has not been shared.
Their medical appointments at Hammersmith — the only remaining point of familiarity — were cancelled without notice.
The mother was excluded from all decisions relating to placement, health, and communication.
Contact has been gatekept, delayed, and conditionally offered, in clear violation of safeguarding standards.
Westminster has failed to respond to multiple written requests and complaints.

This is not contact planning. This is emotional embargo.
This is not safeguarding. This is strategic severance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no local authority should be allowed to erase a child’s life overnight.
Because skating and laughter are not risk factors.
Because asthma medication is not optional.

SWANK logged this because retaliation masquerading as child protection must be exposed for what it is — a performance of care that relies on silence, severance, and selective paperwork.

This is not the first time Westminster has acted outside law and ethics.
It is simply the first time someone has logged every line of it.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Sections 10, 17, 22, and 47
Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR – Articles 3 (inhuman treatment), 6 (fair process), 8 (family life)
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to accommodate PTSD and disability-based communication rights
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Violation of family contact, cultural continuity, emotional stability, and medical access

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child protection. It was clinical abandonment, masked in paperwork.
This wasn’t intervention. It was retribution.

We do not accept the institutional rewriting of safe family life into a risk narrative.
We do not accept the sudden rupture of routine, joy, or medicine.
We do not accept silence as policy.

We document what others dismiss.
And we preserve what they redact.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Institutional Withholding: Asthmatic Silence and the EPO Abyss

⟡ Urgent Disclosure Refused: Four Asthmatic Children, Zero Medication ⟡
“Where a clinical handover should be, there is only contempt.”

Filed: 1 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/URGENT-MEDICAL-DISCLOSURE
📎 Download PDF: 2025-07-01_SWANK_UrgentNotice_MedicalNeglectAsthmaDisclosure.pdf
Summary: Emergency notice to the Family Court citing asthma-related medical neglect following EPO removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four American children — each clinically diagnosed with asthma — were extracted under an Emergency Protection Order. No medical handover. No inhalers. No confirmation of care.

Their mother, Polly Chromatic (known professionally as the Applicant and Director of SWANK London Ltd.), was given no lawful update. Not a dosage, not a name, not a single confirmation that her children were breathing under competent supervision.

The children’s entire medication regime vanished the moment they were removed. There was no inquiry, no packing of prescriptions, and — as of this filing — no evidence that medical continuity has resumed.

On 1 July 2025, SWANK London Ltd issued this urgent safeguarding notice. It is not a request. It is a demand: Where is the asthma care? Who is the clinician? What plan exists?

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Gross institutional negligence of known disability conditions
Breach of duty under Children Act 1989: no medical oversight post-removal
Systemic silence: a blackout on health data and parental access
Violation of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR
Unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
Weaponised safeguarding now causing foreseeable medical harm

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the withholding of medical disclosure for vulnerable children isn’t a policy lapse — it’s an atrocity with a cover page.

This isn’t bureaucracy. It’s clinical abandonment. The kind no hospital board would tolerate, but which appears routine in the Family Court ecosystem.

SWANK London Ltd logs this not as commentary, but as evidentiary proof that medically vulnerable children are now being placed into unknown conditions without the most basic procedural dignity — a health update.

This is how neglect becomes normalised. This is how a child stops breathing — and no one notices until the archive is cited at inquest.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Section 22: Duties to safeguard and promote welfare of looked-after children
ECHR Article 3 – Freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment
ECHR Article 8 – Right to family life and access to personal medical data
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 6 & 15: Disability-based discrimination
UNCRC Articles 6 & 24 – Rights to life, survival, and access to healthcare

V. SWANK’s Position

We are not unclear. We are documenting.

The Court now possesses formal notice of institutional failure. If these children suffer preventable harm, it will not be for lack of documentation. It will be because of it.

This isn’t just a case file. It’s an oxygen warning. And we file it with the full weight of velvet jurisdiction.

Filed and submitted by:
SWANK London Ltd
Evidentiary Audit Division
📍 Flat 37, 2 Porchester Gardens, London W2 6JL
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
📧 director@swanklondon.com

Signed: Polly Chromatic

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v Westminster – On the Administrative Refusal to Acknowledge Disability Despite Voluminous Written Notification

⟡ “Perhaps They Misplaced the Diagnosis. All Twenty of Them.” ⟡
How Many Written Notifications Does It Take to Trigger Reasonable Adjustments?

Filed: 30 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/DIS-FAIL-0125
📎 Download PDF – 2025-01-15_SWANK_DisabilityNotices_WrittenDeclarations_MultipleAuthorities.pdf
1-line summary: Master record of formal disability disclosures submitted to Westminster and affiliated agencies from Jan 2024–Jan 2025.

I. What Happened

Between January 2024 and January 2025, Polly Chromatic, a disabled mother of four disabled children, sent over a dozen formal notifications to Westminster Children’s Services, their agents, NHS practitioners, and social care affiliates. These letters made explicit written reference to:

Her diagnosed muscle tension dysphonia
Chronic and severe eosinophilic asthma
Her children’s shared respiratory vulnerabilities
Medical trauma following a sewer gas exposure incident
The family’s reliance on written communication and educational accommodation

Despite these repeated and timestamped efforts, not a single social worker or institutional actor took consistent steps to document, acknowledge, or adapt to the family’s medical status.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including failure to enact reasonable adjustments for known disability
Neglect of statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 regarding disabled children's needs
Retaliatory disregard for prior medical documentation, especially when communication occurred via email or Google Drive
Willful minimisation of disability status, later leveraged to justify hostile interventions
Medical discrimination under the guise of safeguarding concern — a direct contradiction to fact

This is not just administrative forgetfulness. It is targeted negligence with documented warnings.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because silence is not the same as absence.

Because when a mother writes, informs, documents, attaches, shares, and re-sends — and the institution still pretends it was never told — that is not procedural lag. That is evidentiary defiance.

SWANK logged this to expose the illusion of ignorance often used to justify state aggression. These disability declarations prove that Westminster Children’s Services was fully informed, repeatedly, and in writing. Their failure to respond was not accidental. It was strategic.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989 – Sections 17 and 20 (disabled children’s welfare and parental participation)
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20 and 149 (reasonable adjustments and public sector equality duty)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 ECHR (family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination)
Data Protection Act 2018 – Refusal to process known medical status appropriately

V. SWANK’s Position

This isn’t paperwork. It’s premeditation.

Every time Westminster social workers claimed Polly Chromatic "failed to engage" or "refused to speak," they already possessed clear evidence explaining why: medical injury, vocal trauma, and legal preference for written record.

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was evidence suppression.

And now the record speaks louder than the voice they silenced.

⟡ 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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: EPO Discharge Application Filed Following Procedural Exclusion and Medical Disruption

⟡ “You Called It Emergency. We Filed for Discharge. Now the Archive Has Spoken and the Court Has Been Served.” ⟡
When the Law Is Abused in Silence, It Must Be Corrected in Writing — Publicly, Jurisdictionally, Elegantly.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/EPO-DISCHARGE-S44-FINAL
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Application_FamilyCourt_Discharge_EPO_NoLocationDisclosure.pdf
Formal application submitted under Section 44(10) of the Children Act 1989 to discharge the Emergency Protection Order used by Westminster to remove four disabled U.S. citizen children.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed a Section 44(10) application with the Family Division to discharge the Emergency Protection Order (EPO) granted to Westminster Children’s Services on 23 June 2025. That order was used to forcibly remove Regal, Prince, King, and Honor — all U.S. citizen children with chronic medical needs — without notice, threshold, or due process. The mother was excluded from proceedings due to documented disabilities (PTSD, asthma, muscle dysphonia) and her need for written-only access was ignored. The removal was retaliatory, unannounced, and procedurally opaque. The EPO was issued amid a live Judicial Review and an active £23M civil claim.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The EPO was used to bypass ongoing legal action already filed
Parent was denied participation due to known medical access requirements
No risk threshold was established, nor was placement disclosed post-removal
Medical continuity was broken: four asthma patients missed transition of care
U.S. consular notification was never made — despite all four children being dual nationals

This wasn’t an order for protection. It was a theatre of jurisdiction staged without the subject present.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim protection while concealing placement.
Because no one signs off on child removal during hospital appointment season unless retaliation is the real motive.
Because Section 44(10) exists for exactly this: to call out EPOs used as shields for administrative misconduct.
Because the parent was excluded. The solicitor was ineffective. So we filed the law ourselves — and posted it in public.
Because you cannot redact a filing already published in the archive.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 44(10) – EPO discharged due to lack of threshold, access, and transparency
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access ignored in violation of written-only protocol
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6, 8, 14 – Fair hearing rights denied; family life disrupted; disabled litigant excluded
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36 – No consular notification upon removal of U.S. citizens
UNCRPD and UNCRC – Violations of parental access, sibling unity, and medical safeguarding rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a care order. It was a jurisdictional ambush now subject to reversal.
This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a procedural hit job carried out while the system looked away.
This wasn’t a cry for review. It was a statutory demand for correction filed on time and in public.

SWANK hereby archives this Section 44(10) Application not as a plea — but as a discharge trigger activated by law, logged by evidence, and served to the world.

You ignored the parent.
You ignored the embassy.
You ignored the archive.
Now we file — and we don’t ask twice.

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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Chronic Asthma Care Disrupted by Emergency Removal Without Medical Transition

⟡ “They Removed Four Children With Asthma. I Told the Court Their Hospital Dates. Silence Is Now State-Endorsed Risk.” ⟡
This Isn’t a Reminder. It’s a Clinical Intervention Filed as Judicial Evidence.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/MEDICAL-ALERT-ASTHMA-NOTICE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Notice_FamilyCourt_AsthmaAppointments_ChildrenRemoved.pdf
Formal notice sent to the Family Division confirming scheduled asthma treatment for four removed U.S. citizen children — and the complete lack of transition planning by Westminster.

I. What Happened

At 05:32 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic formally notified the Family Division of upcoming respiratory appointments for her four children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — all of whom were removed from their home on 23 June under an Emergency Protection Order. The children are all patients under specialist asthma care at Hammersmith Hospital. Appointments are as follows:

King – 30 July 2025
Prince – 4 August 2025
Honor – 11 August 2025
Regal – 13 August 2025

The removal occurred without medical continuity, transition coordination, or post-removal communication regarding health care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Removal occurred with full knowledge of chronic medical needs
No transfer of care or continuation plan was provided to the parent
The local authority failed to safeguard respiratory stability
Missed hospital care may now result in preventable clinical deterioration
The Family Court was formally warned — in writing, under disability accommodation protocols

This wasn’t bureaucratic delay. It was institutionally scripted medical neglect.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asthma is not discretionary.
Because no child should miss specialist hospital care because of institutional silence.
Because failure to plan is not neutrality — it is harm by omission.
Because these appointments were booked long before the removal — and ignored immediately after.
Because when the system deletes your children, we file your calendar.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 1 – Welfare of the child not treated as paramount
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Disruption of family and medical autonomy
UNCRC Article 24 – Right to the highest attainable standard of health
NHS Duty of Care – Continuity of treatment breached post-removal
Public Law Duty – Failure to safeguard known medical risk factors during emergency intervention

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a procedural oversight. It was a timeline of preventable harm endorsed by silence.
This wasn’t protection. It was pulmonary disruption in the name of bureaucracy.
This wasn’t a delay. It was evidence that time itself is now complicit.

SWANK has logged this notice as a formal alert to the judiciary, the council, and the court of public record.
You may ignore the appointments.
But the children’s lungs won’t.

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.

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Chronic Asthma Treatment Jeopardised by Unlawful Removal of Children

⟡ “You Took Them Without Consent. You Now Risk Their Medical Neglect.” ⟡
The Court Has Been Notified. The Asthma Appointments Have Been Scheduled. The Clock Is Now Theirs.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/FAMILYCOURT/MEDICAL-ALERT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_FamilyCourt_UrgentMedicalAsthmaAppointments.pdf
Formal medical alert filed to the Family Division regarding four U.S. citizen children with chronic eosinophilic asthma and their scheduled hospital appointments, now jeopardised by unlawful removal.

I. What Happened

On 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic notified the Administrative Court and Family Court Centre that all four of her unlawfully removed children suffer from chronic eosinophilic asthma and have scheduled respiratory hospital appointments at Hammersmith Hospital throughout July and August. The children — King, Prince, Honor, and Regal — were removed on 23 June without medical planning or consent, placing them at direct risk of asthmatic crisis, neglect, and discontinuity of care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

The removal occurred with no transitional medical handover
Scheduled care plans were ignored despite known chronic respiratory conditions
Hospital appointments are non-deferrable and tied to long-term respiratory stability
Risk of acute attacks and avoidable medical deterioration is now state-induced
The Emergency Reinstatement Request pending in court must take medical urgency into account

This wasn’t just removal. It was medical disruption in breach of duty of care.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asthma isn’t political. It’s physiological.
Because you cannot claim protection while cancelling respiratory treatment.
Because King, Prince, Honor, and Regal do not have time to wait for jurisdiction to catch up.
Because when court filings are ignored, oxygen becomes evidence.
Because this isn’t only family law now — it’s public health law, and it’s on record.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 1 – Welfare of the child not treated as paramount
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Interference with family and medical autonomy
UNCRC Articles 24 and 3 – Right to health care and best interests of the child
NHS Duty of Care – Breach in continuity of treatment for chronic conditions
Public Health Duty – State-induced risk of medical neglect post-removal

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t just poor planning. It was state-induced medical endangerment.
This wasn’t safeguarding. It was asthma treatment disruption by bureaucratic negligence.
This wasn’t a neutral action. It was removal without an inhaler, without a plan, without a clue.

SWANK hereby archives this not as a plea — but as a jurisdictional warning served with medical timestamps.
The hospital knows the dates.
The court now does too.
The next breath is the State’s responsibility.

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.

⟡ Chromatic v ER: When Silence Meant Suffering ⟡

⟡ “They Refused to See Him. He Couldn’t Even Speak.” ⟡
Email reporting ER neglect of a nonverbal asthmatic child — sent to Westminster officials and medical consultant

Filed: 22 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/WESTMINSTER/NHS-ER-REFUSAL-KING
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-22_SWANK_Email_ERRefusal_KingRespiratoryCrisis.pdf
Real-time medical alert reporting hospital refusal to treat a breathless child — copied to Westminster Council, RBKC, and NHS staff

I. What Happened

On 22 November 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an urgent email to Dr. Philip Reid and senior Westminster and RBKC officials, documenting that her son Kingdom was refused treatment at an emergency room while actively experiencing respiratory distress.

Despite being visibly ill and barely able to speak, Kingdom was turned away—mirroring what had previously happened to Heir during a separate A&E crisis. Polly explained that she was monitoring oxygen levels at home, administering prednisone based on prior NHS advice, and attempting to secure a follow-up with Dr. Reid due to the ER's repeated failure to respond to asthmatic emergencies with appropriate care.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Procedural breaches: Hospital refusal to examine a child in respiratory crisis without valid reason
Human impact: Lingering respiratory symptoms, inability to speak, suffering left untreated
Power dynamics: ER staff treating a disabled mother’s visit as suspect rather than protective
Institutional failure: Westminster’s silence despite repeated alerts about ER neglect of vulnerable children
Unacceptable conduct: Treating paediatric asthma as parental exaggeration; forcing children to endure untreated episodes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because a child unable to speak should not be refused emergency care.
Because Polly didn’t just report it once — she copied every official with jurisdiction.
Because the ER staff’s refusal to help didn’t just harm Kingdom — it triggered another cycle of surveillance against his mother.
Because when systemic medical neglect meets bureaucratic disinterest, documentation becomes the only safeguard.

This wasn’t just an ER refusal. It was a mirror: showing us how quickly institutions abandon breath — and then punish the one who speaks.

IV. Violations

Children Act 1989, Section 17 – failure to protect and support children in health crises
Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 27 – discrimination based on parent’s disability and history of protected communication
NHS Constitution, Right to Treatment – denial of urgent care without triage
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3 & 8 – inhumane treatment and interference with family medical integrity

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that refusal to treat is the standard response to a breathless child.
We do not accept that oxygen levels excuse suffering.
We do not accept that medical neglect should be reframed as parental misconduct.

This wasn’t missed care.
It was withheld — by professionals more concerned with control than compassion.

And now, it is part of the record.

She Was in Respiratory Crisis. They Were in Her Inbox.

⟡ She Said “We’re All Sick.” They Said “We’re Still Coming.” ⟡
When a disabled parent cancels a visit for medical reasons — and the council calls it “non-cooperation.”

Filed: 21 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-17
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-21_SWANK_Email_SocialWorkVisitRefusal_HealthNeedsDismissed_PullenSavageResponse.pdf
An email thread documenting a parent’s attempt to postpone a safeguarding visit due to respiratory collapse, dental treatment, and ongoing exposure to sewer gas — met with indifference by Rachel Pullen and passive complicity by Laura Savage.

I. What Happened

The parent wrote:
– She was receiving treatment at Brompton for severe respiratory disability.
– Her children had dental and asthma care scheduled.
– They were recovering from environmental poisoning.

She asked to reschedule the visit.
Rachel Pullen replied:
– “We do not consider this harassment.”
– “We will attend anyway.”
– “The police report is noted.”
Laura Savage — the legal representative — forwarded this, but took no stand.

It was not a safeguarding plan.
It was a siege.

II. What the Email Establishes

That a parent gave medical notice to reschedule based on real clinical emergencies
That Westminster proceeded anyway, citing procedural supremacy over disability
That police reports about past harassment were dismissed without inquiry
That Laura Savage failed to advocate for postponement despite medical and legal justification
That no one present acted in the interest of the child’s health — or the mother’s

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when you say “I’m too sick to meet,”
and they reply “We’re showing up anyway,”
that’s not child protection — that’s coercion.
Because requesting time to breathe shouldn't result in a breach log.
And because when your own lawyer won’t defend your lungs,
you publish instead.

IV. Violations Identified

Procedural Disregard for Medical Treatment and Disability Adjustments
Retaliatory Dismissal of Police Report Against Social Worker
Complicity by Legal Representative (Laura Savage) in Allowing Procedural Pressure
Failure to Prioritise Child Health During Recovery from Medical Emergencies
Unlawful Intrusion Under False Safeguarding Pretext

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not scheduling.
It was stalking dressed as paperwork.
You don’t get to ignore clinical records just because your calendar is full.
You don’t get to push past a parent’s hospital days to prove a point.
And if you try —
she’ll just document it louder than you planned.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – PHSO INVESTIGATION REQUEST ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ JURISDICTION BREACH & MEDICAL NEGLECT – EVIDENCE BUNDLE ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Legal and Ethical Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Medical Neglect Telegram II ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations Cited

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ The Medical Neglect Telegram ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations Cited

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ THE UNIVERSAL ENSEMBLE ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

⟡ THE ASTHMA ADDENDUM ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

Filed under the jurisdiction of the Mirror Court — SWANK London Ltd.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer

⟡ The Doctrine of Destruction ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Document Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Has Been Recorded

II. Establishing Points

III. Legal and Human Rights Basis

IV. Reason for SWANK Record

V. SWANK Position

I. WHAT HAPPENED

II. WHAT THE COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES

III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT

IV. VIOLATIONS

V. SWANK’S POSITION

THE WARNING BREATHED

On the Art of Saying “This Is Your Fault” Without Raising Your Voice

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations (If Ignored)

V. SWANK’s Position

🪞SWANK London Ltd

CLINICAL INDIFFERENCE & SYSTEMIC GASLIGHTING – PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Filed Against Dr. Philip Reid, GP, Pembridge Villas Surgery (in personal capacity only)

Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ THE CATALOGUE OF ERRORS ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes