“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

Complaint Received. Clarification Requested. Accountability Postponed.


⟡ SWANK Police Misconduct Archive ⟡

“They Asked Who I Meant. As If It Wasn’t Written.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/DPS/PC01767/2025-04-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-03_SWANK_MetPolice_Response_Request_DiscriminationComplaint_PC01767.pdf

I. They Received a Complaint. Then Forgot How to Read.

On 3 April 2025, SWANK London Ltd. received a reply from the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) regarding our formal complaint of disability discrimination, safeguarding negligence, and procedural harm.

Their reply?

A request for clarification on “who the complaint is about.”

Despite:

  • A subject line identifying the Met

  • An incident described in full

  • An original complaint addressed directly to them

II. What the Email Reveals

  • That even the simplest discrimination complaints are rerouted into semantic obscurity

  • That procedural delay is cloaked in polite inquiry

  • That DPS correspondence routinely reframes misconduct as:

    “a misunderstanding between services”
    Rather than institutional accountability

  • That despite having email headers, dates, and diagnoses, the system's first move is to disorient

This isn’t confusion.
It’s strategy — and it’s archived.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we no longer entertain the dance.
Because clarity is not the issue — institutional refusal is.

We logged this because:

  • It shows how early-stage derailment works

  • It previews how complaints are softened into “communication issues”

  • It marks the first excuse, so it can never be used again without contradiction

Let the record show:

They asked who the complaint was about.
It said "Met Police" in the subject line.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not re-explain what was already made plain.
We publish the question — and let the public answer it.

We do not interpret bad faith as administrative error.
We interpret it as foreseeable, strategic misdirection.

Let the record show:

The complaint was filed.
The facts were laid out.
And the first reply — was a pretend misunderstanding.

This isn’t dialogue.
It’s delay-by-design.
And now, it’s in the archive.

⟡ 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