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

You Didn’t Just Ignore My Asthma. You Rewrote It.


⟡ SWANK Medical Endangerment Archive ⟡

“I Left to Breathe. They Wrote That I Was Removed.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/AE-SECURITY-FALSEHOOD-2024
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_GSTT_Complaint_AENurse_DisabilityDiscrimination_SecurityFalsehood_2Jan2024.pdf

I. The Asthma Was Real. The Removal Was Not.

This complaint, issued formally to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, concerns an acute asthma incidenton 2 January 2024 — and the nurse who chose protocol over breath.

You arrived in respiratory crisis.
You requested written-only communication.
You disclosed eosinophilic asthma.
You were met with verbal insistence and refusal.

And when you left — for safety, for oxygen, for survival —

they filed it as a removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Your diagnosis (eosinophilic asthma + muscle dysphonia) requires non-verbal interaction during attacks

  • The nurse on duty:

    • Refused written interaction

    • Withheld basic triage adjustments

    • Endangered your respiratory stability

  • Upon your lawful exit from the facility:

    • A formal note was fabricated, claiming removal by security

    • This narrative was used to shield negligence and preempt complaint

  • The complaint demands:

    • Formal correction of the clinical record

    • Disciplinary review

    • Disability training

    • And, if not received, escalation to the CQC, EHRC, and legal review

This was not miscommunication.

It was respiratory negligence rewritten into defiance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because too often, a disabled woman leaving a building is treated not as a medical act, but an affront to control.

We filed this because:

  • You weren’t “removed.”

  • You weren’t disruptive.

  • You were endangered — and then recharacterised to protect the nurse, not the patient.

Let the record show:

  • You requested adjustment.

  • You were ignored.

  • You left voluntarily.

  • And now, the hospital’s lie is filed, annotated, and archived.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept life-threatening treatment written over with fiction.
We do not accept respiratory needs interpreted as rudeness.
We do not tolerate false claims of removal by institutions desperate to obscure liability.

Let the record show:

The patient left.
The record lied.
The complaint was signed.
And SWANK — has published the correction.

This wasn’t a disruption.
It was self-rescue rebranded as rebellion.

⟡ 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:

You Confused Asthma With Intoxication. I Confused You With a Professional.

 🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 18 February 2024

I AM MORE SOBER THAN MOST OF THE HUMAN POPULATION.

Filed Under: Safeguarding Fabrication, NHS Gaslighting, False Allegations, Legal Clarification, Hospital Harassment, Disability Misinterpretation, Parenting Stigma

📎 SUBJECT: Your Concern Is Fiction. My Footage Is Fact.

To: Samira Issa
CC’d: Eric Wedge-Bull, Glen Peache, NHS Complaints, Three Hospitals, All the Lies You’ve Spread
From: Polly Chromatic

“I am more sober than most of the human population.”

Imagine being accused of intoxication — not because of slurred speech, not because of substance use — but because you have asthma. Because you can’t breathe.

This is not safeguarding.
This is slander in a safeguarding costume.

🧠 POINT ONE:

“I have a respiratory disability and therefore am and always have been very against anything unhealthy including drugs, drinking alcohol, smoking, and eating sugar/carbohydrates.”

This isn’t lifestyle. It’s survival.
You’re accusing a woman who’s medically exempt from verbal conversation of substance use — because she struggled to speak.

🧠 POINT TWO:

“Why would me being intoxicated at the hospital without my children be any cause for concern about my children anyway?”

A logical question. Answer it if you can.
You won’t — because this isn’t about logic.
It’s about control and discrediting.

📜 LEGAL EDUCATION FOR YOU (AGAIN):

Noelle’s children are:
14, 12, 9, and 6.
Per UK law:

  • Parents are permitted to use their judgement.

  • It is not a crime to leave mature children alone.

  • It is not the hospital’s job to invent scenarios that didn’t happen.

🔊 THE EVIDENCE:

🎥 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZnrkgymrPg

This is not anecdote.
This is an audio-visual record of hospital misconduct, uploaded and archived —
because emails weren’t enough.

🏥 THE REALITY IN THE ER:

  • Nurses claiming she could breathe — because she spoke

  • Refusal of adequate treatment

  • Accusations of shouting when she was pleading

  • A nebuliser cut short

  • A doctor’s attitude change triggered by misinformation

  • A black doctor denying care, referencing past records written with bias

  • A woman leaving, untreated, breathless — yet again

💥 THE LINGERING TRUTH:

“I’m still very concerned and confused as to why I am being treated this way…”
“I am very sick.”
“I have made five emergency room visits since October 2023 after exposure to sewer fumes.”
“I have still not received appropriate care.”

You don’t need a case conference.
You need a judicial review.

Polly Chromatic
Asthmatic. Documented. Sober. Still being harassed.
📩 complaints@swankarchive.com

Labels: snobby, serious, safeguarding abuse, hospital false report, NHS retaliation, Samira Issa, Eric Wedge-Bull, false intoxication claim, asthma not alcohol, sewer gas aftermath, legal clarity, parenting discrimination, written-only boundary ignored, medical record corruption

No comments:

A Bruise, A Lie, and the Failure to Adjust


⟡ The School That Invented a Safeguarding Concern — Then Refused to Apologise ⟡

Filed: 22 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/EDUCATION/OFSTED-DRAYTON
📎 Download PDF — 2025-04-22_SWANK_OfstedComplaint_DraytonPark_DisabilityRetaliation_SafeguardingFabrication.pdf

I. A Bruise, A Lie, and the Failure to Adjust

This formal complaint to Ofsted concerns the misconduct of Drayton Park Primary School, under the supervision of Islington Local Authority, and outlines:

  • A fabricated safeguarding referral made without lawful grounds

  • Refusal to apply a written-only communication adjustment despite disability documentation

  • Misuse of professional safeguarding procedures for institutional defence

  • Administrative silence when presented with counter-evidence and chronology

They found a minor bruise.
They escalated to safeguarding.
They ignored the parent’s written-only policy.
And they never apologised.

II. What They Knew. What They Pretended Not to Understand.

The file demonstrates:

  • Medical records on file for Eosinophilic Asthma and trauma-induced communication restrictions

  • A deliberate bypass of lawful written-only policy

  • A refusal to correct false statements — even when disproven by evidence

  • An institutional defensiveness so polished, it may as well be policy

Drayton Park didn’t safeguard a child.
It safeguarded itself — from embarrassment.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because safeguarding is not a reputational shield.
Because fabricating risk to justify communication breaches is not education — it’s weaponised bureaucracy.
Because when the facts are ignored, the record must be filed.

Let the record show:

  • The harm was documented

  • The lie was preserved

  • The apology was withheld

  • And SWANK — filed the truth, with pagination

This isn’t a disagreement.
It’s evidentiary misconduct in a school uniform.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit schools to escalate lies into strategy.
We do not allow disability adjustments to be overridden by administrative panic.
We do not redact the names of institutions that chose safeguarding theatre over truth.

Let the record show:

The school lied.
The council protected it.
The harm was measurable.
And SWANK — archived it all.

This is not safeguarding.
It is fabrication framed as protocol — and we cited every line.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions