Showing posts with label medical neglect. Show all posts

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

⚖️ 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 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.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

⟡ 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.

© 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.

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.

© 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.

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.

© 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.

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.

© 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 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.

When Safeguarding Becomes a Health Hazard: How Disability Refusal Became a Threat Response

⟡ “You’re All Making Me Sick.” ⟡
A medical escalation. A legal refusal. A respiratory warning ignored.

Filed: 14 December 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/FAILURE-RESPIRATORY-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025.02.14_DisabilityHealthBreakdown_WestminsterSafeguardingReid.pdf
A written complaint to Westminster officials detailing the physical collapse, legal breaches, and fatal risk caused by safeguarding intrusion and institutional neglect.

I. What Happened
On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic issued a formal health escalation and safeguarding refusal to senior Westminster staff and NHS clinicians. The message detailed weeks of respiratory distress, widespread illness across the household, and the psychological and physiological toll of prolonged unwanted state contact. The letter identified safeguarding personnel — not asthma — as the primary source of ongoing health deterioration.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Contact from Children’s Services was physically harmful and medically unsound
Disability-related accommodations were knowingly ignored
Repeated requests for non-contact were refused in practice
Emotional exhaustion was compounded by institutional gaslighting
A clear risk to life was present, logged, and left unaddressed

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because safeguarding is not exempt from accountability.
Because illness caused by forced contact is not “coincidence.”
Because refusal is a legal and medical protection — not a provocation.
And because when a disabled parent becomes physically sicker because of social work “support,”
that is not an unfortunate outcome — it is misconduct.

SWANK London Ltd. logged this document as part of its disability archive, evidentiary timeline, and formal institutional harm record.

IV. Violations

❍ Equality Act 2010 – Refusal to provide adjustments for a known chronic respiratory illness
❍ Article 3 ECHR – Inhuman and degrading treatment through reckless disregard for health impact
❍ Negligent Endangerment – Escalating illness by refusing to accommodate legal and medical refusal
❍ Safeguarding Misconduct – Misuse of authority to override disability protections
❍ Failure of Duty of Care – Continuing contact after explicit warnings of harm and exhaustion

V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a safeguarding intervention.
This was government-administered medical destabilisation.

The refusal was lawful.
The condition was documented.
The warnings were issued.
And the silence that followed was violence by omission.

SWANK London Ltd. stands by the archive.
The collapse wasn’t clinical.
It was institutional.
And it was entirely preventable.

Forced to Speak, Forced to Suffer: The Social Worker’s Toll.

🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 14 December 2024
ON THE VERGE OF DEATH—AND STILL UNHEARD

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Medical Neglect · Muscle Dysphonia · Verbal Disability · Institutional Harassment · Social Worker Abuse · SWANK Health Crisis

The Email to Kirsty Hornal and Sarah Newman

“We’re still trying to get to a point in which we are not on the verge of death and the entire time I’ve been telling you all this.”
“Even the hospital doesn’t believe me when I or my children go to A&E with 87% oxygen.”
“If one of us dies, you all are responsible.”

“You escalated the case due to my inability to talk verbally, forcing me to talk for over a year while bringing illness into our home.”
“This caused me muscle dysphonia, making it very hard to speak now.”
“I had to stop talking to my mother and friends because of the extreme load placed on my lungs.”

“You—all social workers, especially Sarah—must be held accountable.”

Disability Statement

Please Note: I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.

📍 Formally Logged by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Breathless Violations Archived.

Probably Better to Stay Home and Die.

🖋️ SWANK Dispatch | 14 December 2024
“Ignored Clarity Becomes Silence. Silence Becomes Risk.”

Filed From: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Author: Polly Chromatic
Filed Under: Disability Communication Failure · Institutional Neglect · Verbal Access Denied · Medical Coordination Collapse · SWANK Crisis Log

The Plea That Went Unheard

On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote the following to Kirsty Hornal and Sarah Newman, with Laura Savageand Philip Reid copied:

“It’s like no one takes me seriously and I don’t know why, as I’ve been very clear—yet no one will talk to the hospital and find out why.”

And in one unanswerable sentence:

“Probably better to stay home and die.”

That is not drama.
That is data.
That is what happens when all forms of available communication are ignored.

It’s not that help isn’t possible.
It’s that they chose not to connect the lines between her, her hospital, and her truth.

Disability Communication Reminder

Please Note: I suffer from a disability which makes speaking verbally difficult. I prefer to communicate telepathically to minimise respiratory strain; however, email is fine.

📍 Logged in Distress by:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Silences Filed.

When National Redress Fails, We File With Geneva

⟡ “If the State Fails, the Archive Escalates.” ⟡
SWANK Submits Shadow Report to United Nations: Documenting Systemic UK Violations Against a Disabled Mother and Her Children

Filed: 31 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/UN/EMAIL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-31_SWANK_Email_UNRapporteurs_ShadowReport_DisabilitySafeguardingRetaliationUK.pdf
Summary: SWANK formally submits a shadow report to the UN outlining systemic disability discrimination, retaliatory safeguarding, medical neglect, and intersectional harm within the UK child protection system.

I. What Happened

On 31 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted a shadow report to three UN entities:
– Special Rapporteur on Disability
– Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
– Urgent Action desk at OHCHR

The report alleges violations of:
– The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
– The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
– The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

It details:
– Refused medical adjustments
– Procedural retaliation through child safeguarding channels
– Medical neglect by multiple NHS trusts
– Intersecting racism and ableism affecting both parent and children
– Institutional refusal to investigate or remedy

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• The UK has failed to provide medical access and procedural equity to a disabled parent
• Safeguarding structures are used as retaliatory levers — not protective frameworks
• Medical neglect is compounded by state narrative control and dismissal
• Oversight within the UK has failed — necessitating international attention
• SWANK functions as a public record and evidentiary vault in the absence of domestic protection

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is no longer just a complaint — it’s a case study in human rights denial.
Because when the state silences, the archive speaks internationally.
Because escalation to the UN is not an end — it’s a signal: we documented everything.
Because this was not just a report — it was a declaration of jurisdictional failure.

SWANK logs the moment the domestic system failed — and the global one was summoned.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that intersectional harm can be dismissed by internal process fatigue.
We do not accept that systemic failures can hide behind jurisdiction.
We do not accept that silence can survive documentation.

This wasn’t a report. This was an intervention.
And SWANK will publish every submission that says: the system saw, and still refused.

⟡ 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.

They Refused to Treat Me. Then Called the Police to Justify It.

SWANK Incident Report

I Went to Hospital for Help. I Was Met with Surveillance, Accusation, and a Police Visit.

Filed: 4 January 2024

Labels: Medical Retaliation, Safeguarding Theatre, Police Overreach, Chronic Illness Disbelief, Institutionalised Racism, Motherhood Under Surveillance

♕ WELCOME TO SWANK
An Archive of ✦ Elegance, ✦ Complaint, ✦ and Unapologetic Standards
from a Mother Harassed by the State in Two Countries for Over a Decade.

✦ The Scene

2 January 2024, 8:00 PM —
I took myself to St. Thomas’ Hospital with my daughter Honor, experiencing severe breathing difficulty, dizziness, weight loss, and physical exhaustion.

We entered what can only be described as a dehumanising waiting area—rows of collapsed bodies in plastic chairs, barely distinguishable from each other.

I was ignored, questioned, and passed back and forth between waiting and registration, while barely able to sit upright. Honor was quiet. I was civil.

I stepped on someone’s foot by accident in the crush of chairs. Minutes later, I was verbally attacked—
by a stranger
—while struggling to breathe.

The hospital’s response?
Question me. Not treat me.

✦ The Turning Point

After the verbal assault, I was escorted to another room.
I was not treated.
I was not offered medical relief.

Instead, I was interrogated about my parenting.

I explained repeatedly:

“Please focus on treating me—I cannot breathe.”

They refused.

They told me I could not be treated while my daughter was with me—
a lie, easily disproven by a decade of ER visits across three nations.

I left the hospital.
I did nothing illegal.
I returned to my hotel with Honor, exhausted.

Minutes later—
the police arrived at my door.

✦ The Police Visit

The same officers from the hospital.
Nine in total.
They entered my hotel room at 4am, standing there while my children watched The Barbie Movie.

I had not yelled.
I had not been arrested.
But they were there.
Because the hospital, having denied me care, now attempted to paint me as the abuser.

I was crying, visibly ill.

“No one cares when I’m sick,” I said aloud.
They documented that instead of the nebuliser I never received.

The police told me later:

“I have no concerns about your children.”

But by then, the damage had already been done.

✦ The Broader Pattern

This wasn’t just a misunderstanding.
It was a coordinated ritual of institutional betrayal.

❝ You cannot ask a woman who cannot breathe to defend herself mid-asthma attack. ❞

St Thomas hospital had done this before.
The police followed without evidence.
Social workers hovered without support.
No one treated the asthma.
Everyone treated the mother.

✦ Final Word

I am disabled, but I am not disempowered.
I set boundaries.
I homeschool my children.
I document everything.
I am not here to convince anyone—I’m here to record what happened.

The next day, 3 January, I was finally treated—at Chelsea & Westminster.
They gave me a nebuliser.
Diagnosed me with COVID.
Prescribed prednisone.

Everything I had said was real.

You just didn’t want to believe me until someone else did.

Filed under: Institutional Misdiagnosis, Medical Neglect, Police as Enforcers of Narrative, Disability Erasure, Maternal Surveillance, Racism Reversed, Documentation as Resistance

Breathing While Documented: How Hospitals Manufacture Safeguarding from Medical Data

🖋️ SWANK Emergency Dispatch
I Came for Oxygen. They Wanted a Confession.
Filed: 14 February 2024
Labels: Medical Neglect, Safeguarding Retaliation, Breathing While Mothering, Evidence Suppression, Clinical Coercion, Data Denial

⚜ WELCOME TO SWANK

An Archive of ✦ Elegance, ✦ Complaint, ✦ and Unapologetic Standards
by a Mother Harassed by the State in Two Countries for Over a Decade.
❝ I Was Too Breathless to Speak, So I Offered My Book. She Told Me to Hold It Myself. ❞

A Detailed Reconstruction of 4 February 2024 — Chelsea & Westminster Emergency Department

Condition: Documented asthma exacerbation, SpO2 90–95%, peak flow critical.
Arrival: Uber — too weak to walk.

✦ What I Brought

Peak flow readings, meticulously logged in a notebook
SpO2 data from Apple Watch & Smart Flow meter
Oxygen levels with timestamps
History of treatment refusal
Body cam recording (audio preserved, video pending)

✦ What They Did

Initial Nurse Response:
She asked for my peak flow. I offered my notebook.
❝ Hold your own book. ❞
I whispered:
❝ I can’t breathe. ❞
She said:
❝ You can breathe. ❞
She refused to share my oxygen readings, moved me to another cubicle where a different nurse gave a nebuliser.
Medical records from the previous night were “missing.” The game of lost files began.

✦ The “St Thomas Trigger”

They discovered I’d attended St Thomas Hospital. Then:
❝ Do you have four children? ❞
Left alone thirty minutes, then a senior nurse arrived—no physician.
“There was an incident last night at St. Thomas. We need to ensure your children are safe.”
“We may need to call the police.”
I replied:
❝ Go ahead. But treat me first. I can’t breathe. ❞

✦ The Real Problem

They weren’t responding to a medical emergency.
They escalated a safeguarding narrative based on false records from another hospital — records I was disputing.
This is retaliatory referral — the epidemic behind every fabricated concern.

✦ Final Treatment

After explaining I was refused a second nebuliser the night before, they relented and gave:
A second nebuliser
Prednisone
Permission to leave
But only after proving compliance — not illness.

✦ This Post is a Record

🩺 I was not erratic.
📚 I was not unprepared.
🧾 I brought data.
🎥 I brought proof.
Yet, they framed the narrative around risk, not treatment.
Because, to the system, a mother with evidence is not a patient.
She is a threat.
Filed under: Institutional Gaslighting, Referral Retaliation, Oxygen as Leverage, Parenthood as Risk Category, Clinical Misconduct
✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
📍 Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
📧 director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
Search Description:
Polly Chromatic exposes retaliatory hospital referral amid severe asthma attack, highlighting medical neglect and institutional gaslighting.

Disability Ignored, Empathy Denied: A Report from the Respiratory Front Lines

🗓️ 4 January 2024

SWANK Blog Title: A Birthday, A Breach, and a Breathless System
Labels: asthma emergency, medical neglect, racial projection, safeguarding misuse, police escalation, emotional abuse, child rights, disability discrimination, St Thomas misconduct, COVID diagnosis

A Birthday, A Breach, and a Breathless System

💨 Filed under: Respiratory Crisis, Institutional Misconduct, and the Failure of Empathy

On the second of January 2024, I made the rational and collaborative decision with my children to attend A&E—not out of drama, but due to the small matter of my lungs not working. That night, I was wheezing, dizzy, and down ten kilograms from prolonged illness. Heir, my youngest, chose to accompany me.

We arrived at St Thomas’ A&E—or as it appeared that night, a dystopian social experiment in overpopulation and collapse. We were ushered into the Majors waiting area—an architectural simulation of empathy failure. Humans were crammed, strewn, breathing each other’s pathogens at close range. We tried not to step on anyone. We failed.

Despite my clear and documented history of eosinophilic asthma, a nurse—resentful for reasons that remain medically unexplained—suggested I might just be having an “asthma thing.” I politely corrected her. She offered a nebuliser. We sat. Then we were displaced. Then called again. Then told to wait. I stumbled over a foot in the crush of the neglected. For that, I was soon verbally attacked by a woman whose rage was racialised, misdirected, and endorsed by the environment.

And then the accusation came—the eternal bait: abuse. A common technique used by low-quality humans to deflect their own lack of emotional regulation. A nurse took me and Heir into a side room—not to treat my breathing—but to interrogate me about my children.

I could barely speak, but I kept asking for medical treatment. Instead, they sent police to our hotel room.

We left. Heir and I returned to our hotel. I cried. We had only just arrived when officers, again, appeared at the door. For what offence? “Leaving” A&E. Apparently leaving without treatment is now criminal.

They came back. Then more of them. Nine, at one point. One officer said my condition "wouldn’t be fixed in one night anyway"—a remarkable position from someone neither medical nor kind. Eventually, a woman officer told me I would not be arrested. She also told me: "I have no concerns about your children."

It was 4am when the police left.

Then it was my son Prerogative’s birthday.

🎈 We went bowling. We had cake. Balloons. We sang. The hotel staff helped. But amidst the celebration, more messages from social workers. Even after all this. Even when I’d said: not today. Even when I could barely breathe.

So we returned to a different hospital: Chelsea and Westminster. There, they confirmed what anyone with compassion or clinical training should have known days earlier—I had COVID. My lungs needed help. They gave me prednisone. And peace.

But the damage had been done.
By St Thomas.
By the police.
By the social workers who circle like vultures instead of healers.

I changed my number.
I do not want calls.
I cannot speak.
I reserve my voice for my children—those who listen.
The rest can learn to write.

—

This is not a story of bad luck. It is a story of institutional design.
Designed to punish, not protect.
To escalate, not resolve.
To make asking for help feel like betrayal of oneself.

And I won’t betray myself anymore.

—
Curated for the SWANK Archive by Polly Chromatic
www.swankarchive.com

Failure to Correct Prescription Dose: NHS and Council Obstruct Access to Life-Saving Treatment

⟡ “The Dose Is Wrong and You Know It”: When Access to Medicine Becomes a Monthly Siege ⟡
A sick woman begs for the correct dose of a life-saving drug. The reply? Silence — and a 50mg shortfall.

Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS/RX-044
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-14_SWANK_EMAIL_WCC-NHS_Prescription-Obstruction.pdf
Email to NHS and council contacts alerting them to an under-dosed prescription blocking access to biological treatment. No correction was made.

I. What Happened
On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote to NHS liaison Dr Philip Reid, with council and legal parties copied, regarding a critical prescription error. Royal Brompton Hospital had confirmed that she required a dose of 250mg in order to proceed with biological treatment — yet the prescription held by the GP stated only 200mg.

This discrepancy, left uncorrected, blocked her access to care.

In that same message, she noted the absurd regularity with which her medications became inaccessible — a ritual humiliation repeated monthly. Despite life-threatening asthma, despite consultant confirmation, despite email upon email — the dose was wrong, and the system shrugged.

There was no apology. No amendment. No clinical urgency. Just inertia, weaponised by familiarity.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Neglect of duty by prescribing bodies and GP liaison
Breach of continuity of care standards under NHS Constitution
Obstruction of life-saving treatment through administrative indifference
Disability-based medical neglect: systemic delay in required asthma care
Compounded safeguarding risk via uncorrected prescriptions and unrelieved harassment

This was not a clerical oversight. It was pharmacological negligence, sustained and ignored.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because underdosing is not an accident when it recurs with such precision.
Because no one with specialist-confirmed treatment requirements should be forced to beg for the correct numbers on a digital form.
Because a 50mg shortfall becomes lethal when the patient is already struggling to breathe — and has been for decades.
Because institutions now treat medicine the way they treat communication: as something a disabled woman must earn.

SWANK records this not as a symptom, but as a structure. A system in which survival is conditional on obedience — and dosage is a disciplinary mechanism.

IV. SWANK’s Position
This was not just the wrong dose.
This was a denial of access to life-saving treatment, by design or by habitual disdain.
This wasn’t a prescription. It was a procedural snare.
SWANK does not accept healthcare that withholds on a technicality. Nor do we accept silence as dosage.

We document every refusal, every delay, every underdose.
Because until the systems that make women sick are held to account, every 50mg matters.

⟡ 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.

Coherence, Alignment, and the Ethics of Output

⟡ When the Hospital Refuses to Treat You and Calls a Social Worker Instead ⟡
“I went to breathe. They sent police. And now I need a psychologist to recover from the psychologist they sabotaged.”

Filed: 30 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS/EMAILS-04
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-30_SWANK_EmailSummary_WCC_MedicalNeglect_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
Formal written summary to Westminster staff outlining a one-year pattern of NHS neglect, racialised assumptions, police overreach, and social work retaliation.

I. What Happened

On 30 October 2024, the parent submitted an email to Westminster Children’s Services detailing an unbroken chain of trauma and procedural abuse:

Five asthma attacks treated as behavioural issues in A&E
Two hospitals that refused care while summoning social services
Accusations of abuse during active medical distress
A birthday ruined by police in a hotel room while the parent was seeking urgent care
Social workers who lied to a treating psychologist, blocking access to mental health support

The email is addressed to Kirsty Hornal. It does not contain legal theory. It contains testimony.

And now it contains a record.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That racial and disability profiling in NHS emergency departments triggered unnecessary safeguarding referrals
That the family experienced dual-agency trauma — medical dismissal followed by social work escalation
That psychiatric care was actively sabotaged by the institution claiming to be concerned
That children were directly harmed by the institutional response to their mother’s health crisis
That no institution — not the hospital, nor social services — acted to repair the harm caused

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when you go to the hospital to get air, and leave with a social worker — you’re not being assessed.
You’re being profiled.

Because when nine police officers are sent to a hotel on your child’s birthday — it’s not support.
It’s a message.

Because when a psychologist is contacted and misled to stop her from treating you —
You are not under care.
You are under control.

This email is not just a trauma log.
It is an institutional map of harm, sent to the very people who orchestrated it.

And now, it is archived.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Sections 19 and 20
Discrimination by association (race), failure to implement medical and psychiatric adjustments
Children Act 1989 / 2004
Harm to children through unjustified intervention and prolonged distress
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, 8, 14
Degrading treatment; denial of private life, health support, and fair process
Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR
Misuse of personal data to block access to independent psychological care
NHS Duty of Care (Common Law + GMC Guidelines)
Negligence in treatment during respiratory emergency, racialised escalation

V. SWANK’s Position

This was not a safeguarding concern.
It was a multi-agency breakdown engineered through institutional arrogance.

This was not “confusion” between services.
It was discrimination passed between departments like liability hot-potato.

The trauma is cumulative.
The response is performative.
And the archive is permanent.

We said we couldn’t breathe.
You gave us a referral.
We sent you an email.
Now we file it.

⟡ 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.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

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

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

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

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

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

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

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 Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

The Email to Kirsty Hornal and Sarah Newman

Disability Statement

The Plea That Went Unheard

Disability Communication Reminder

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

SWANK Incident Report

I Went to Hospital for Help. I Was Met with Surveillance, Accusation, and a Police Visit.

✦ The Scene

✦ The Turning Point

✦ The Police Visit

✦ The Broader Pattern

✦ Final Word

🖋️ SWANK Emergency DispatchI Came for Oxygen. They Wanted a Confession.Filed: 14 February 2024Labels: Medical Neglect, Safeguarding Retaliation, Breathing While Mothering, Evidence Suppression, Clinical Coercion, Data Denial

⚜ WELCOME TO SWANK

🖋️ SWANK Emergency Dispatch
I Came for Oxygen. They Wanted a Confession.
Filed: 14 February 2024
Labels: Medical Neglect, Safeguarding Retaliation, Breathing While Mothering, Evidence Suppression, Clinical Coercion, Data Denial

An Archive of ✦ Elegance, ✦ Complaint, ✦ and Unapologetic Standards
by a Mother Harassed by the State in Two Countries for Over a Decade.
❝ I Was Too Breathless to Speak, So I Offered My Book. She Told Me to Hold It Myself. ❞

Condition: Documented asthma exacerbation, SpO2 90–95%, peak flow critical.
Arrival: Uber — too weak to walk.

Peak flow readings, meticulously logged in a notebook
SpO2 data from Apple Watch & Smart Flow meter
Oxygen levels with timestamps
History of treatment refusal
Body cam recording (audio preserved, video pending)

They weren’t responding to a medical emergency.
They escalated a safeguarding narrative based on false records from another hospital — records I was disputing.
This is retaliatory referral — the epidemic behind every fabricated concern.

After explaining I was refused a second nebuliser the night before, they relented and gave:
A second nebuliser
Prednisone
Permission to leave
But only after proving compliance — not illness.