“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 safeguarding inversion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safeguarding inversion. Show all posts

Chromatic v St Thomas’ NHS & MPS: On the Willful Ignoring of a Police Report That Didn’t Suit the Safeguarding Narrative



⟡ Filed While Gasping (v2): The Police Report They Ignored So They Could Blame the Victim Instead ⟡
On the audacity of inverting a gasping woman into a criminal suspect — while CCTV sat unbothered in the corner


Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-FALSEINVERSION-20240102
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault_v2.pdf
Summary: Police report filed by Polly Chromatic after she was verbally assaulted at St Thomas' A&E while struggling to breathe. The report was never acted on — but she was.


I. What Happened

On the night of 2 November 2023, Polly Chromatic presented at St Thomas’ Hospital with severe eosinophilic asthma. Dizzy and unable to stand from oxygen deprivation, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while reaching a seat.

A woman in the waiting room launched into verbal abuse — racial, public, and aggressive. Polly, trying to hear the nurse, asked the woman to stop.

She was then moved calmly to another room by hospital staff.
The event was caught on CCTV.

The next day, Polly filed a formal police report: verbal assault, racially charged, triggered by a medical emergency.

She identified the suspect. She requested CCTV be reviewed.
She described what happened, what could be seen, and what couldn’t be denied.

But nothing came of it.
Instead — she became the subject of a safeguarding referral alleging she had attacked someone else.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Verbal abuse against a disabled mother during medical crisis

  • No de-escalation or staff intervention in the moment

  • Police report filed — and ignored

  • Hospital never investigated or submitted CCTV footage

  • The victim was recast as the aggressor by later social work teams

  • The original report was buried in favour of a narrative that facilitated child removal and psychiatric review


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how state lies begin:
With the erasure of first-hand reports and the inversion of credibility.
Because when a woman says: “I was attacked in public, while breathless, and my daughter saw everything”, the response should not be: “Let’s refer you to safeguarding.”

This police report is not just a form. It is a contested origin point.
The narrative reversal that follows can be traced back to this moment:
A breathless woman, filing a report —
Only to become the accused.

SWANK archives it to remind every authority involved:
We did tell you the truth. You just refused to read it.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment

  • Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair investigation

  • Article 8, ECHR – Respect for family life (daughter witnessed abuse)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to protect a disabled woman from discrimination

  • Police Code of Ethics – Failure to follow up on a report from a vulnerable person

  • NHS Duty of Candour – No acknowledgment or corrective communication from the hospital


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a plea for protection — filed while breathless, traumatised, and trying to keep her daughter safe.

We reject the erasure of disability and race in public abuse cases.
We reject the failure to review CCTV because doing so would vindicate the mother.
And we reject any safeguarding structure built atop a lie they were too lazy — or too biased — to disprove.

The hospital saw the abuse. The police were told. The state rewrote the victim.
We will correct the record, line by line.


⟡ 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 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.


⟡ 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.