“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

Chromatic v MPS: On the Institutional Redefinition of Discrimination as Disagreement


⟡ The Informal Rejection of Formal Law ⟡
“Reasonable adjustments are... unreasonable. Review rights are... revoked.”

Filed: 5 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/DISMISSAL-WITHOUT-REMEDY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-05_SWANK_MPS_InformalComplaintDismissal.pdf
Met Police informally reject formal complaint PC/05184/25 with bureaucratic prose and circular logic.

⟡ Chromatic v MPS: On the Institutional Redefinition of Discrimination as Disagreement ⟡
Metropolitan Police Service, informal resolution, Equality Act denial, refusal of adjustments, safeguarding misuse, IOPC avoidance, performative apology

I. What Happened
On 5 June 2025, PC James Armstrong of the Metropolitan Police’s Complaints Resolution Unit issued an informal reply to Complaint PC/05184/25. This was in response to police involvement in discriminatory safeguarding escalations originating from NHS staff between November 2023 and February 2024 — including coercive questioning of a disabled parent and her children under visible medical distress.

Armstrong’s response evaded specifics and declined formal escalation, citing earlier complaints, valid referrals, and what he termed “reasonable” limitations on disability accommodations. The complaint was logged but intentionally notrecorded, thereby removing the complainant’s right to review.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • ⟡ Institutional reframing of discrimination as procedural necessity

  • ⟡ Euphemistic invalidation of access needs — “reasonable” becomes elastic

  • ⟡ False equivalence between concern raised and harm inflicted

  • ⟡ Deliberate informality to avoid triggering oversight

  • ⟡ Safeguarding weaponised against already-vulnerable family

  • ⟡ No documentation of actual verification process or misconduct remediation

This was not resolution. This was rhetorical repositioning.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because every refusal to record a complaint is an act of institutional curating — where only the least embarrassing grievances are allowed to exist. When a police force rewrites “rights” into “discretion,” it’s not an oversight. It’s an erasure.

The MPS response is not just offensive. It is jurisprudentially baroque — cloaked in the language of civility while denying both remedy and recognition. That is why SWANK logs it. Not to seek redress — but to build record.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010 (s.20–21) – denial of reasonable adjustments

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – interference with family life

  • Police Reform Act 2002 – failure to record complaint and trigger statutory oversight

  • IOPC Statutory Guidance – improper informal handling of serious allegations

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t learning. It was laundering.
This wasn’t protection. It was pretence.
We do not accept the substitution of oversight with prose.
We do not accept the reframing of discrimination as “contextually valid.”
And we certainly do not accept complaint mechanisms designed to remove the right to complain.

⟡ 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:

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