A Transatlantic Evidentiary Enterprise — SWANK London LLC (USA) x SWANK London Ltd (UK)
✧ Filed with Deliberate Punctuation ✧
“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

Chromatic v GSTT (PC-020): On the Elegance of Breath and the Bureaucracy of Blame


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – GUY’S & ST THOMAS’ NHS FOUNDATION TRUST ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/GSTT-ASTHMA-DISCRIMINATION-020
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-020_GSTT_AsthmaDiscriminationFalseSecurityReport.pdf
Summary: Foundational complaint to Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, documenting the discriminatory treatment and false reporting that occurred at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E on 2 January 2024. This letter is the origin document of the False Security Report Series and the first written articulation of respiratory discrimination as an evidentiary category within the SWANK Archive.

I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ Hospital A&E in acute respiratory distress due to a severe eosinophilic asthma episode.
Her daughter accompanied her, observing as the attending nurse continued to question her verbally despite visible breathlessness and documented communication limitations.

Unable to respond verbally and fearing imminent collapse, she voluntarily left the department with her daughter to preserve her health and safety.
No hospital security was involved.

Yet, within weeks, official NHS and police records falsely described her as being “removed by hospital security.”
This distortion turned a medical exit into a disciplinary myth — a bureaucratic inversion of patient autonomy.

The next day, 3 January 2024, she was treated at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, given nebuliser therapy, diagnosed with COVID-19, and prescribed prednisone.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That St Thomas’ Hospital failed to apply reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 for a patient with a documented respiratory and communication disability.
• That staff negligence endangered both patient and child.
• That internal documentation was falsified, recording a security removal that never occurred.
• That this falsification spread through the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service, mutating into procedural defamation.
• That institutional dishonesty, once written, metastasises.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To preserve the original version of the event before institutional mythology rewrote it.
• To establish a jurisprudential record of asthma-related discrimination and narrative manipulation.
• To create a permanent evidentiary counterpoint to NHS documentation.
• Because truth, unarchived, disappears.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Statutory Basis
• Equality Act 2010 — failure to accommodate disability (ss.15, 19, 20).
• Data Protection Act 2018 — accuracy principle (s.171).
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 3, 6, 8, and 14 — degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination.

Ethical & Clinical Standards
• NHS Constitution — right to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.
• GMC Good Medical Practice — responsibility to communicate effectively and adapt to patient needs.
• NMC Code of Conduct (2018) — duty to recognise communication barriers and prevent harm.

Regulatory Oversight
• Care Quality Commission (CQC)
• Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)
• NHS Resolution (Case Reference 2025/RES/A23)

V. SWANK’s Position

“A false report is a bureaucrat’s masterpiece — precision without truth, authority without breath.”

SWANK London Ltd. regards this incident as the founding case of procedural retaliation within clinical settings, where institutional discomfort eclipses medical ethics.
The letter therefore stands not as a complaint but as a jurisdictional fossil — the first written evidence that patient autonomy, when inconvenient, is recoded as misconduct.

It marks the beginning of the Respiratory Discrimination Archive, the aesthetic record of what happens when care collapses into control.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because breath deserves justice.
And bureaucracy deserves memory.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

Chromatic v CPS & MPS (PC-121): On the Jurisdiction of Falsehood


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – METROPOLITAN POLICE & CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS-CPS/SECURITY-CLAIM-CORRECTION
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-121_CPSMetPolice_InaccurateSecurityClaimComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint addressed jointly to the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service, correcting the false statement that the complainant (Polly Chromatic) was “removed by hospital security” during an incident at St Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024. The letter asserts that this claim is factually false, defamatory, and medically disproven, and demands immediate correction of all CPS and police records under the Data Protection Act 2018.

I. What Happened

On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ Hospital A&E in severe respiratory distress.
While struggling to breathe, she was repeatedly interrogated by a nurse who ignored visible medical incapacity.
In order to protect her health and her young daughter, Honor, she voluntarily left the room — unassisted and unescorted.

Despite this, official records in both Metropolitan Police and CPS case summaries (URN: 01LX1056024) falsely assert that she was “removed from the room by hospital security.”

This distortion transforms a disabled patient’s self-preserving exit into a criminalised narrative of disorder.
The truth was not inconvenient — it was simply ignored.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That no hospital security removal occurred — a categorical factual error propagated by state documentation.
• That the complainant’s actions were medically necessary and lawfully autonomous.
• That the misrepresentation has defamatory consequence, influencing criminal case interpretation.
• That this misinformation violates the accuracy principle of the Data Protection Act 2018 (s.171) and Article 5(1)(d) UK GDPR.
• That this single falsehood epitomises the bureaucratic reflex to pathologise disability and penalise self-protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To formally preserve the record of this falsehood and its correction demand.
• To connect this case with the parallel institutional misconduct logged in PC-122 (GSTT) — proving narrative coordination across NHS and justice bodies.
• To ensure that factual correction becomes the procedural remedy to institutional defamation.
• Because truth, once written, becomes evidence — but falsehood, if unchallenged, becomes precedent.

IV. Legal & Procedural Framework

Statutory Basis
• Data Protection Act 2018, s.171 – duty of accuracy in personal data.
• UK GDPR, Art. 16 – right to rectification.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15 & 20 – discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – right to personal dignity and privacy.

Oversight Avenues
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) – review of record inaccuracy and data breach.
• CPS Complaints & Victims’ Rights Review Scheme.
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – accuracy and rectification request oversight.

V. SWANK’s Position

“When the state lies by accident, it is negligence;
when it lies by pattern, it is policy.”

SWANK London Ltd. defines this incident as institutional falsification through repetition — the bureaucratic transmutation of disability into deviance.
The complainant’s lawful self-removal during a medical emergency was reimagined as ejection, and this fantasy has since travelled across agencies unexamined.

The correction request is therefore not clerical; it is constitutional — a demand for truth within an administrative ecosystem allergic to it.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And lies deserve correction.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

Chromatic v GSTT (PC-122): On the Invention of a Security Incident


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – GUY’S & ST THOMAS’ NHS FOUNDATION TRUST ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/NHS/GSTT-DISABILITY-DISCRIMINATION-01
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-122_GSTT_DisabilityDiscriminationFalseSecurityReport.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint issued to Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust concerning the false security report and discriminatory treatment of a disabled patient (Polly Chromatic) during a respiratory emergency at St Thomas’ Hospital A&E on 2 January 2024. The complaint demands record correction, investigation, and reform of Trust protocols for disabled patients experiencing acute medical crises.

I. What Happened

During a severe asthma episode on 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ A&E accompanied by her young daughter.

Despite visible respiratory distress and medical vulnerability, a nurse continued repetitive verbal questioning, disregarding her inability to speak during an active asthma attack.

This interaction caused acute physical risk and emotional trauma, compelling her to voluntarily leave the department to safeguard her own health and that of her child.

Weeks later, internal documentation falsely alleged she had been “removed by security”, converting an act of self-preservation into a narrative of disorder — a classic institutional rewriting of the disabled patient’s experience.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That medical staff failed to apply reasonable adjustments for a communication-related disability.
• That a false report was entered, alleging security involvement where none occurred.
• That the hospital’s internal systems reinforced a narrative of blame to conceal clinical negligence.
• That such falsification constitutes disability discrimination and reputational harm under statutory law.
• That the complaint represents an act of legal reclamation — the patient repossessing her own story from bureaucracy’s mouth.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To expose the NHS’s pattern of rewriting patient behaviour to obscure discrimination.
• To demand record correction and the re-establishment of factual accuracy as a human right.
• To connect this incident to broader institutional retaliation following lawful medical and safeguarding complaints.
• Because dignity, once taken from the patient, must be refiled in the public record.

IV. Legal & Ethical Framework

Domestic Law
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15, 19, 20 — discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Data Protection Act 2018 — accuracy obligations under s.171.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 3, 6, 8, 14 — protection from degrading treatment, fair process, privacy, and discrimination.

Clinical & Ethical Codes
• NHS Constitution — respect, dignity, and patient voice.
• GMC Good Medical Practice — communication and safeguarding duties.
• Nursing & Midwifery Council Code (2018) — obligation to treat patients with dignity and respect.

Regulatory Oversight
• Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)
• Care Quality Commission (CQC)
• NHS Resolution

V. SWANK’s Position

“To falsify a medical record is to commit a quiet act of violence — bureaucracy’s way of rewriting pain into paperwork.”

SWANK London Ltd. asserts that Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust participated in the administrative conversion of disability into disorder, fabricating a narrative of removal to mask discrimination.

The hospital’s failure to uphold its ethical duties not only endangered a patient’s life but criminalised her symptoms.

This complaint therefore functions as both a request for investigation and a public affidavit: testimony transcribed in gold rather than apology written in ink.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And revisionism deserves record.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

Chromatic v RBKC (PC-123): On the Administrative Art of Dismissal


⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – ERIC WEDGE-BULL & BRETT TROYAN (RBKC CHILDREN’S SERVICES) ⟡

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/RBKC/FORMAL-COMPLAINT/2025-EBT
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-123_RBKCChildrenServices_FormalComplaint_EricWedgeBull_BrettTroyan.pdf
Summary: A formal escalation to RBKC Children’s Services Complaints Team, alleging procedural retaliation, disability discrimination, and mismanagement by Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan. The letter demands proper escalation under the statutory Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006, rejecting the council’s premature closure and misrepresentation of the complaint as “resolved.”

I. What Happened

On 23 May 2025, following repeated violations of lawful communication adjustments and the mishandling of safeguarding-related correspondence, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) submitted this formal continuation and escalation of her unresolved complaint against Eric Wedge-Bull and Brett Troyan.

The complaint identified the following statutory breaches:
• Procedural retaliation against a disabled parent lawfully home-educating four children.
• Failure to respect written-only communication adjustments required under medical certification.
• Inappropriate tone and discriminatory remarks during periods of confirmed health crisis.
• Improper interference by senior officer Brett Troyan to prematurely dismiss or minimise the complaint.

The complaint further objected to RBKC’s unauthorised closure of the matter under the false claim of a “positive working relationship,” despite ongoing distress and unresolved procedural breaches.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That RBKC breached the statutory complaint handling process, refusing escalation to Stage 2 investigation.
• That Eric Wedge-Bull’s communications exhibited disability-based discrimination and tone-based misconduct.
• That Brett Troyan’s intervention was not oversight but obstruction.
• That systemic discrimination and retaliation now constitute a verifiable pattern across multiple agencies.
• That lawful home education and medical accommodation continue to be reframed as risk rather than right.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To document procedural malpractice disguised as “resolution.”
• To preserve proof of statutory non-compliance in RBKC’s complaint process.
• To show that disability rights and parental rights were jointly eroded through bureaucratic contempt.
• Because a letter to an ombudsman is also an act of jurisdictional performance art.

IV. Legal Framework

Statutes Cited
• Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 – procedural escalation duties.
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 15, 19, 20 – discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 6, 8, and 14 – denial of fair process, interference with family life, and discrimination.
• Freedom of Information Act 2000 – access to complaint-handling data.

Oversight Bodies Notified
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• Social Work England (SWE)

V. SWANK’s Position

“Resolution without investigation is not closure — it is erasure.”

SWANK London Ltd. classifies RBKC’s conduct as statutory fraud through omission: the wilful conflation of complaint closure with complaint management.
The document functions as both grievance and affidavit — a linguistic injunction ensuring that “positive working relationship” will never again be misused as euphemism for coercion.

Every procedural omission, once recorded, becomes governance’s mirror.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And dismissal deserves documentation.

⚖️ 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.
No comments:

Chromatic v Westminster (PC-124): On the Bureaucratic Talent for Lawless Continuity


⟡ FINAL ENFORCEMENT DEMAND – PROCEDURAL MISUSE & DISABILITY NON-COMPLIANCE ⟡

Filed: 24 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/FINAL-DEMAND-124
Download PDF: 2025-05-24_Core_PC-124_WCC_ProceduralMisuseAndDisabilityNonCompliance.pdf
Summary: The predecessor document to the twin enforcement filings (PC-125 and PC-126), this letter issued by SWANK London Ltd. to Westminster Children’s Services formalises the department’s procedural delinquency — demanding written statutory justification, cessation of unlawful involvement, and compliance with medical adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

I. What Happened

On 24 May 2025, Polly Chromatic served a Final Enforcement Demand addressed to:

  • Mr Sam Brown

  • Ms Kirsty Hornal

  • Ms Sarah Newman
    at Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, copied to Legal Services (RBKC/WCC) and the Administrative Court Bundle.

The letter demanded written answers within five working days to the following statutory failures:

  1. Statutory Basis – Identify whether actions were under s.17 or s.47 of the Children Act 1989.

  2. Assessment Disclosure – Confirm existence or absence of lawful assessment.

  3. Threshold of Harm – Produce any evidence used to justify ongoing involvement.

  4. Article 8 Justification – Explain interference with family life.

  5. File Retention & Erasure – Respond to data deletion request under UK GDPR Art.17 and DPA 2018 s.47.

Despite concurrent filings — Judicial Review (N461), Injunction (N16A), and Civil Claim (N1) — Westminster continued its conduct, mistaking persistence for legality.

II. What the Document Establishes

• That Westminster failed to demonstrate any lawful safeguarding remit since early 2024.
• That “ongoing contact” was procedurally void — unauthorised, retaliatory, and discriminatory.
• That Article 8 rights and Equality Act duties were actively breached.
• That non-response to a formal written notice constitutes obstruction and deliberate institutional harm.
• That Westminster’s safeguarding theatre continues without audience, law, or script.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To codify the council’s descent from procedural failure into administrative fraud.
• To render the written demand a jurisdictional artefact, permanently admissible.
• To preserve the paper-trail moment when Westminster crossed from negligence to knowing misconduct.
• Because evidence, once stylised, becomes immortal.

IV. Legal and Ethical Framework

Domestic:
• Children Act 1989 — s.17/s.47 misuse and duty of proportionality.
• Equality Act 2010 — ss.20 & 149 (reasonable adjustment and public duty).
• Human Rights Act 1998 — Arts. 6, 8, 14 (fair process, private life, non-discrimination).
• Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR Art.17 — erasure and retention law.

Regulatory:
• Social Work England Professional Standards (2021) — breaches of integrity, communication, and respect.
• Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman — maladministration jurisdiction activated.

International:
• UNCRPD Arts. 5 & 13 — equality and access to justice.
• Vienna Convention (1963) Art.36 — consular rights for U.S. nationals.

V. SWANK’s Position

“When law is absent, tone becomes jurisdiction.”

SWANK London Ltd. defines this filing as the moment procedure met precision — a letter so calibrated it functions as both correspondence and cross-examination.
By refusing to answer, Westminster transformed their silence into evidence and their arrogance into art.

This is not enforcement as demand; it is enforcement as documentation — a linguistic injunction against ignorance itself.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because negligence deserves narrative.
And retaliation deserves record.

⚖️ 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.
No comments: