“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

Polly Chromatic v Metropolitan Police: Unlawful Removal of Disabled Children Without Legal Grounds


⟡ “You Came Without a Warrant. You Took Four Children. You Ignored the Law Because Someone Told You To.” ⟡
This Was Not Enforcement. This Was Escorting Retaliation.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/COMPLAINT-REMOVAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_MetPolice_DisabledChildrenUnlawfulRemoval.pdf
Formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police regarding their role in the removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without lawful authority, medical consideration, or legal procedure.

I. What Happened

On 22 June 2025, officers from the Metropolitan Police accompanied Westminster Children’s Services to forcibly remove four U.S. citizen children from their home — children with known disabilities and medical needs. Their mother, Polly Chromatic, a disabled U.S. citizen with muscle dysphonia, complex PTSD, and eosinophilic asthma, was not served a court order, not given prior notice, and not accommodated as required by law. The police acted as enforcers of a completely undocumented removal — during an active Judicial Review and within 48 hours of a criminal referral naming the very same officials.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Officers attended without a warrant, order, or legal basis

  • Disability accommodations were ignored despite longstanding written notification

  • The removal was executed during live legal action and under diplomatic protection

  • No medical transition plan, documentation, or judicial authority was presented

  • Four disabled children were subjected to trauma with police assistance — while in the care of a parent who had committed no crime

This wasn’t law enforcement. It was a civil kidnapping co-signed by uniform.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the police are not above the law — they are supposed to uphold it.
Because showing up without a warrant and calling it safeguarding isn’t brave — it’s bureaucratic obedience.
Because trauma isn’t reduced by badges — it’s legitimised by them.
Because the only documentation provided in this removal was archived after the fact — by the mother, not the officers.
Because children are not leverage, and uniforms are not immunity.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability-based exclusion from protection and process

  • Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – Entry without warrant or lawful cause

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal without lawful authority or safeguarding threshold

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair hearing; interference with family life

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Unlawful separation without lawful review

  • UNCRPD Articles 13 & 14 – Discriminatory and arbitrary interference with disabled parent’s rights

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t protection. It was state-facilitated trauma, delivered by police van.
This wasn’t legal. It was officer-enabled retaliation against an evidentiary archivist.
This wasn’t an oversight. It was a calculated avoidance of all documentation — because they knew the archive existed.

SWANK hereby logs this event as a breach of dignity, law, and procedural order.
We were not confused. We were excluded.
We were not mistaken. We were silenced.

This post serves as both record and indictment.

⟡ 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.

⟡ 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