⟡ Chromatic v Met Police: Midnight Isn’t Reasonable Adjustment ⟡

---

⟡ “The Police Came at 11PM. I Was Asleep. They Came Anyway.” ⟡
Email exchange documenting police visit to disabled mother’s home at night — and her formal objection to future in-person attendance

Filed: 14 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/METROPOLITAN/POLICE-VISIT-DISPUTE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-14_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_StatementObjection_DisabilityBoundary.pdf
Email requesting statement handover to avoid in-person visits, citing disability, homeschooling, and surveillance safeguards

---

I. What Happened

On 14 April 2025, Polly Chromatic received a response from Detective Sergeant George Thorpe of the Metropolitan Police, confirming that PC Kirsty Russell was the investigating officer for her report. The reply followed Polly’s 12 April 2025 message raising serious concerns about an unannounced late-night police visit to her home, despite:

• Her medically documented communication limitations

• Her four children being asleep during home education hours

• The existence of a pre-written statement to avoid verbal engagement

Polly politely requested that the statement be relayed to the attending officers and reiterated that, unless absolutely necessary, she does not consent to unplanned police visits due to medical, safety, and trauma-related reasons.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Procedural breaches: Failure to respect disability-based written communication adjustment; late-night visit without notice

• Human impact: Trauma exposure, sleep disruption, and heightened anxiety in a disabled household under harassment watch

• Power dynamics: Attempted forced verbal interaction despite clear documented limits

• Institutional failure: Ignoring previous documentation, disability status, and safeguarding boundaries

• Unacceptable conduct: Treating written statements as insufficient solely because they do not offer real-time compliance

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because no one should be woken up at 11pm by the state.
Because there is no policy justification for showing up unannounced at the home of a disabled mother of four — when a statement was already provided.
Because the system will not acknowledge that written statements are not avoidance — they are accommodation.
Because this email is not about the event. It is about the expectation: that disabled people should still speak.

This archive entry is an act of quiet defiance — the kind that only appears after the doorbell rings too many times.

---

IV. Violations

• Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – failure to provide reasonable adjustments; disability discrimination in public service

• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – unlawful intrusion into private life, especially during family rest hours

• Code of Ethics – College of Policing, Standards 1 & 4 – respect for rights, integrity, and public trust

• Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) – failure to anticipate and accommodate known disability needs

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that officers can knock at 11PM with no explanation.
We do not accept that trauma, disability, or documented boundaries can be ignored for administrative convenience.
We do not accept that presence is proof of protection.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This was state intrusion, veiled in politeness, carried out in silence, and now filed with fury.

---

⟡ 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.