📎 2025-05-30_SWANK_SARResponse_MetPolice_StThomasRetaliationURN01LX1056024.pdf
⟡ “We Received Your Subject Access Request. Please See Attached. (It’s Nothing.)” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Disclosure. It Was a Placeholder Reply — Filed with Institutional Shrug and Silhouetted Complicity.
Filed: 30 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/SAR-NODISCLOSURE-RETALIATIONURN
Metropolitan Police response to Subject Access Request for URN: 01LX1056024 (St Thomas’ retaliation). The reply included no data, no redactions, no summary — only “please see attached.”
I. What Happened
On 30 May 2025, the Metropolitan Police replied to a lawful Subject Access Request from Polly Chromatic regarding a recorded incident of state retaliation. The URN — 01LX1056024 — links to a safeguarding and safeguarding-adjacent complaint involving:
St Thomas’ Hospital
Police attendance
Safeguarding weaponisation
CPS inquiry (via MG5/MG11/Body-Worn Video request)
Despite this, the reply included:
No narrative
No disclosure
No denial
Just a minimal attachment — a non-document in reply to a lawful access demand.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The Met Police holds data on a retaliatory safeguarding incident — and refused to disclose it
The format of the reply (“see attached”) offers no explanation, exemption code, or holding reply
The SAR was reduced to administrative formatting with no engagement
The “non-response” constitutes a legal delay disguised as fulfilment
This wasn’t redaction. It was institutional smokescreen — downloaded in PDF.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because police cannot hold data about hospital-triggered retaliation and claim silence is lawful.
Because “please see attached” is not a substitute for accountability.
Because this is how systems hope to run out the clock: by appearing responsive while revealing nothing.
IV. Violations
UK GDPR, Article 15 – Right of access not fulfilled
Data Protection Act 2018 – Failure to explain refusal or delay
Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No accommodation made for accessible format
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 & 13 – Denial of remedy and transparency
ICO Guidance – Subject Access must include clear disclosure or lawful justification for refusal
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t disclosure. It was a jurisdictional ghost.
This wasn’t oversight. It was optical compliance — sent with font, not fact.
This wasn’t lawful. It was a bureaucratic blink at a retaliatory crime.
SWANK formally archives this “reply” as proof that URN-linked data is being withheld in full knowledge of its legal and ethical relevance.
The record exists.
They said “see attached.”
We say: see obstruction.
⟡ 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 silence deserves a spotlight.
© 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.