“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 trauma evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trauma evidence. Show all posts

In the Matter of Four Wheezing Citizens: Clinical Neglect, Asthma Suppression, and the Bureaucratic Allergy to Inhalers


⟡ They Took Inhalers, Not Evidence ⟡
Because medical records don’t scream. But they breathe.

Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/SECTION/0626-D
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Bundle_SectionD_MedicalNegligenceAsthmaAndSafeguardingFailure.pdf
Asthma diagnoses, specialist care plans, psychiatric evaluations, and safeguarding violations—fully documented.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, four disabled children with asthma diagnoses were removed from their home without medication, continuity plans, or respect for known clinical dependencies. Section D catalogues the medical negligence embedded in that act.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Every child had formal NHS respiratory care in progress.

  • Medical appointments were scheduled. Prescriptions were active.

  • A sewage gas exposure in 2023 was ignored.

  • Disabilities (including Eosinophilic Asthma, PTSD, dysphonia) were not accommodated.

  • Removal disrupted respiratory stability, continuity of treatment, and access to urgent care.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because safeguarding cannot override breath. Because every page of this section tells the court what Westminster failed to ask: “Does this child have asthma?”
And because documenting each appointment date is a form of resistance. Institutions erase. We annotate.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 – Section 20 (Failure to make reasonable adjustments)

  • Children Act 1989 – Sections 17 and 22 (Duty to safeguard and promote welfare)

  • Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 3 (Inhuman/degrading treatment), Article 8 (Family life), Article 14 (Disability discrimination)

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Article 7 (Children with disabilities)

V. SWANK’s Position

These aren’t just medical notes. They are pre-trauma records. They show a family managing complex disability—until a system weaponised procedure against breath itself.
The inhalers weren’t packed. But the evidence is. SWANK logs every molecule.

⟡ 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 Visit from the Imaginary Intern


🖋 ⟡ SWANK Black Paper ⟡
An Archive of Elegance, Intrusion, and Institutional Fantasy
Date Filed: 22 October 2020
Published by: SWANK London Ltd.
Official Website: www.swanklondon.com
Author: Polly Chromatic, Director
Registered Correspondence Address: Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
Contact: ✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy

LIES, FENCES, AND VIDEOTAPE

A Counter-Narrative in Six Scenes

I. Scene One: Fabrication at the Gate

They claimed: an interning social work student attended.
— He did not exist.

They claimed: they entered through an unchained gate.
— Every gate was chained. They broke the fence. The footage exists.

They claimed: rude signage on the fence.
— Correct. The original kind signs were defaced by a neighbour. The replacements were, shall we say, less forgiving.

II. Scene Two: Domestic Theatre of the Absurd

They claimed: “We saw her through a wide open door.”
— I was breastfeeding. Inside. They loitered wordlessly. I shut the door in confusion.

They claimed: I refused to comply.
— I dressed my children, opened the door, and recorded everything. The entire event is documented.

They claimed: noises of glass shattering.
— Fiction.

They claimed: police received permission to enter.
— They broke in. No permission was granted.

They claimed: “four hours of refusal.”
— Another fiction. I have the footage.

They claimed: permission was asked and received to photograph.
— It was not. They photographed without consent.

III. Invented Hygiene and Imagined Squalor

They claimed: “strong smell of urine,” “urine everywhere,” “no functioning bathroom.”
— We were remodelling. Compost system. Shower. They didn’t inspect the bathroom.

They claimed: mouldy fridge, spoiled vegetables.
— There was salmon. Apparently, salmon is now a safeguarding concern.

They claimed: “no food in the cabinet.”
— We don’t eat preservatives. The freezer was full.

They claimed: messy playroom.
— Children were playing.

They claimed: everyone slept on two mattresses.
— We had four—side by side—for safety. No headboard injuries. Revolutionary, apparently.

They claimed: “exposed plumbing and wires.”
— Mythical.

They claimed: structure “unsafe.”
— We were renovating. The property is owned. Shall we outlaw interior design?

IV. Misdiagnosis of Mental Health & Domestic Sovereignty

They claimed: concern for my mental state.
— My mental health is fine. I’d be concerned about theirs.

They claimed: children are “withdrawn.”
— They don’t talk to rude people.

They claimed: “poor grooming.”
— I was breastfeeding four children. Forgive me for not curating a lookbook.

They claimed: “no functioning kitchen.”
— They never entered the kitchen.

They claimed: “lack of compliance.”
— I cannot comply with an unseen plan.

V. Financial and Educational Myths

They claimed: doubts about my financial provision.
— I owned the home. Spent $3000/month on food. Paid every bill.

They claimed: doubts about homeschool.
— I had approval. Followed the curriculum. They ghosted.

They claimed: “no evaluation.”
— They never assessed. My children exceeded their standards, and that was the problem.

VI. Omitted Truths and Ongoing Questions

They omitted: the May 2017 doctor visit, where my children were harmed in front of nine adults.

They ignored: our active passport renewal process.

They claimed: we are “hiding.”
— We’ve lived at the same address since 2018.

They hinted: dysfunction.
— There is none. Our home is calm, our children are thriving, and our marriage is intact.

© SWANK London Ltd.

All patterns reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction, distortion, or bureaucratic hallucination is prohibited.


No comments: