“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: Disability Rights Violated During State-Enforced Child Removal


⟡ “They Let the Social Workers In. They Ignored My Disability. They Took Four Children While I Was Medically Silenced.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Police Assistance. It Was Police Enforcement of Unlawful State Harm.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/DISABILITY-VIOLATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_MetPolice_DisabilityViolation_ChildRemoval.pdf
Formal complaint filed with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) detailing failures by Metropolitan Police to uphold disability law, verify legal authority, or follow trauma-informed safeguarding during the 23 June 2025 child removal.

I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Metropolitan Police officers entered the home of Polly Chromatic and assisted Westminster Children’s Services in the forcible removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children. At the time, the parent — medically documented with PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and eosinophilic asthma — had active written-only communication directives and was party to ongoing civil (N1), Judicial Review, and emergency relief proceedings. Police failed to observe any disability accommodations, verify the Emergency Protection Order’s legitimacy, or safeguard the rights of the 16-year-old child, Regal, who was removed without hearing or court review.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Police officers enabled removal without validating the legal basis of the EPO

  • Documented medical accommodations were entirely disregarded

  • No written notice, opportunity to present evidence, or trauma-informed safeguards were offered

  • Officers acted as enforcers of institutional retaliation rather than neutral protectors

  • The presence of an active JR and civil claim was ignored in real-time

This wasn’t just misconduct. It was state-endorsed abuse under blue-light authority.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because trauma-informed policing cannot be bypassed when children are involved.
Because failing to ask for paperwork is not procedural neutrality — it’s complicity.
Because ignoring a disability access directive is not an oversight. It is an act of exclusion.
Because when four Americans are taken under unclear British orders, the police are not bystanders.
They are enablers.

IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No reasonable adjustments made for documented disabilities

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair process, private life, and family protection

  • College of Policing Code of Ethics – Breach of duty to verify, safeguard, and prevent institutional harm

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from participation in justice

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to verify safety, legality, or medical transition planning for children removed

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t community protection. It was jurisdictional malpractice carried out in uniform.
This wasn’t police neutrality. It was state violence facilitated by procedural ignorance.
This wasn’t a failure to act. It was an act of failure — recorded, timestamped, and now archived.

SWANK has formally submitted this complaint not merely as protest — but as litigation preparation.
You cannot remove a mother’s voice and call it safeguarding.
You cannot ignore medical directives and call it lawful.
You cannot assist unlawful removal and expect impunity.

⟡ 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