“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

You Sent a Safeguarding Report. They Sent a Shrug.


⟡ SWANK Police Retaliation Audit ⟡

“No Further Action: A Bureaucratic Genre.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/REF2025-003917

📎 Download PDF — 2025-04-03_SWANK_IOPC_Acknowledgment_NoAction_Response_Ref2025-003917.pdf

I. A Police Visit Was Reported. The Regulator Replied With Shrug Syntax.

This is the formal reply issued by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following a lawful complaint concerning:

  • Police officers dispatched to a disabled household

  • In direct breach of a written-only disability adjustment

  • Following a safeguarding threat by email from a known local authority officer

What returned was not inquiry. Not correction. Not even curiosity.
What returned was an institutional shrug — elegantly typeset and deeply disinterested.

No interview. No assessment.
Just: “No further action.”

II. What the Document (Doesn’t) Say

It makes no reference to:

  • The Equality Act 2010

  • The complainant’s medical exemption

  • The retaliatory nature of the incident

  • The prior complaint history

  • Or the question:
    Why were police officers sent to a silent household in the first place?

The IOPC didn’t dispute the facts.
They simply withdrew from them.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because failure to act is a genre, and it deserves citation.

We filed this as part of the SWANK Retaliation Index because:

  • The harm was real

  • The procedure was unlawful

  • The response was emblematic of regulator drift

Let the record show:

  • The event was real

  • The complaint was structured

  • The IOPC received it

  • And they — left it untouched

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse institutional politeness with accountability.
We do not consider “acknowledgment” a meaningful response.
We do not permit a shrug to replace a standard.

This wasn’t oversight.
It was genre-correct evasion — trimmed in header font and procedural passivity.

The officers arrived.
The rules were broken.
The regulator blinked.
And SWANK — filed that too.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.

Documented Obsessions