“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label respiratory risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label respiratory risk. Show all posts

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 Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

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.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments:

A Refund Request and a Bureaucratic IQ Test


🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 10 December 2024
“There Will Be No Assessment. Only Incompetence.”

Filed Under: Disability Disregard · Medical Incompetence · Verbal Chauvinism · Refunds & Resistance · Procedural Stupidity · SWANK London Ltd

—

Dear Kirsty,

“There will be no assessment because no one is smart enough to provide adjustments so I can communicate.”

Precisely.

When the bar for reasonable adjustment is “allow her to write,”
and the institution still fails—

we are not in the realm of psychiatry.
We are in the kingdom of bureaucratic Dunning-Kruger.

I asked for a refund because the receptionist refused to send the doctor the documents required to complete the psychiatric report.

This, after I was told email was permitted.
This, despite a respiratory disease and legal rights.
This, after years of being punished for not speaking—even though speaking could kill me.

And now social workers want to conduct assessments
in a system that doesn't even understand email?

No.

There will be no assessment.
There will be a paper trail.

—

📍 Officially Unassessed by:
Polly Chromatic
Sovereign of Written Expression, Destroyer of Bad Admin
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Assessments Declined.


No comments:

Chromatic v SWE: On the Administrative Obscuring of Medically Induced Harm by Process


⟡ The Regulator Who Needed It Rephrased to Recognise It as Harm ⟡
“Respiratory collapse must be correctly formatted to reach us.”

Filed: 18 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SWE/PT10414-SARAHNEWMAN
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-18_SWANK_SWE_ComplaintAcknowledgement_SarahNewman_PT10414.pdf
Social Work England acknowledges complaint PT-10414 against Sarah Elizabeth Newman, requesting further clarification before deciding whether severe medical risk to children qualifies for investigation.

⟡ Chromatic v SWE: On the Administrative Obscuring of Medically Induced Harm by Process ⟡
SWE, Sarah Newman, respiratory harm, access breach, medical risk ignored, safeguarding escalation, complaint triage, structural disbelief

I. What Happened
On 18 June 2025, Social Work England issued an acknowledgment for complaint PT-10414 concerning social worker Sarah Elizabeth Newman, whose conduct allegedly included:

  • Refusal to provide written-only communication

  • Escalation to PLO proceedings without substantiated risk

  • Continued social work visits to immunocompromised children — knowingly inducing respiratory infections

Rather than proceed directly to investigation, SWE’s George Wicks sent a triage-stage request asking the complainant to confirm these details, re-summarise the harm, and confirm the legal permissibility of discussing Family Court matters — before SWE will decide whether children gasping for breath warrants professional scrutiny.

II. What the Reply Establishes

  • ⟡ Institutional disbelief sanitised as “triage”

  • ⟡ Medical risk framed as rhetorical ambiguity

  • ⟡ Failure to treat disability and immunocompromise as public interest concerns

  • ⟡ Contempt of court invoked before complaint is even read

  • ⟡ Structural obstruction performed with bureaucratic grace

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was procedural theatre with the curtain already drawn.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because “we may investigate, but only after you rephrase the oxygen crisis” is not regulation. It is dereliction. SWE does not dispute the infection. It disputes the format.

When the threshold for professional accountability is higher than the threshold for harm, we no longer call this “triage.”
We call it evidence.

IV. Violations and Jurisdictional Concerns

  • Equality Act 2010 – failure to respect and protect communication adjustments

  • Article 8 HRA – failure to preserve family and medical integrity

  • Children Act 1989 – breach of duty of care to known vulnerable minors

  • Regulatory negligence – delaying response to time-sensitive harm

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t inquiry. It was insulation.
This wasn’t caution. It was calibrated disbelief.
SWANK does not accept regulators who require medical harm to be politely proofed before review.
We do not rephrase breathing difficulty to accommodate filing systems.
And we will not await regulatory approval to describe what already happened.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

My Lungs Are Not a Safeguarding Risk.


⟡ You Didn’t Understand My Asthma. So I Filed the Science for You. ⟡

Filed: 30 June 2020
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2020-ASTHMA-DEFENCE
📎 Download PDF — 2020-06-30_SWANK_TCI_SocialDev_AsthmaDisability_ProtectionLetter_CDC_NHS_Kennedy.pdf

I. This Letter Was Not Written to Explain. It Was Written to Stop the Harassment.

This formal letter to TCI Social Development outlines, in controlled rage and evidentiary precision, what the department refused to learn:

  • That Eosinophilic Asthma is a clinically diagnosed, life-threatening condition

  • That repeated contact, stress, and forced compliance constitute medical aggression

  • That shielding households are not invisible — they are protected

  • That the state’s refusal to understand a disability does not erase the disability

This is not a complaint.
It is a legal respiratory boundary, dressed in CDC citations and maternal force.

II. What They Called Defiance Was Self-Protection

This document provides:

  • Full citations from the CDC, NHS, and international respiratory guidelines

  • A list of symptoms, risks, and history of state-induced exacerbation

  • A direct reference to Officer Kennedy, whose conduct triggered this protective response

  • A clear statement of refusal, grounded in the law, the lungs, and lived experience

Let the record show:

They accused the mother of “non-engagement.”
She replied — with immunology.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because no parent should have to explain their airway to a bureaucrat.
Because forced engagement isn’t just procedural — it’s physical risk.
Because when the state cannot distinguish safeguarding from endangerment,
we submit the science in PDF.

Let the record show:

  • The asthma was real

  • The danger was documented

  • The refusal was lawful

  • The letter — was filed, not requested

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not negotiate with institutions that confuse illness for attitude.
We do not permit repeated intrusion into medically shielded spaces.
We do not allow safeguarding officers to weaponise their own ignorance.

Let the record show:

The child was not neglected.
The mother was not unstable.
The air was not optional.
And SWANK — filed the oxygen boundary for them.

This is not health education.
It is a clinical cease and desist — with receipts.




No comments: