“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
Showing posts with label £1.1M claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label £1.1M claim. Show all posts

£1.1 Million for Every Minute They Ignored the Law


⟡ The Night They Sent Police Instead of Help ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-DISABILITY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_IOPC_Evidence_MetPolice_DisabilityViolation_SafeguardingRetaliation_£1.1MClaim.pdf

I. £1.1 Million for Every Minute They Ignored the Law

This evidence was submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following a safeguarding-triggered home visit by the Metropolitan Police Service, which breached:

  • A lawful written-only communication adjustment

  • A documented medical crisis (respiratory collapse)

  • Established trauma diagnoses

  • All disability accommodation duties under the Equality Act 2010

They didn’t come to assist.
They came to discipline.

Not with force — but with presence, silence, and procedural shock.

II. They Read the Adjustment. Then Came Anyway.

The evidence outlines:

  • Forced attendance without emergency justification

  • No advance notification

  • Refusal to correspond in writing

  • Escalation after lawful safeguarding complaints had been filed against the council

  • Presence during acute asthma collapse

This wasn’t policing.
It was punishment in uniform — for the crime of requesting protection.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability adjustments are not optional.
Because when a system retaliates, the police shouldn’t deliver it.
Because the presence of law enforcement during medical trauma is not neutral — it is an act of gaslit provocation.

Let the record show:

  • The harm was witnessed

  • The policy was breached

  • The silence was strategic

  • And SWANK — filed it with legal clarity and fiscal notation

This wasn’t failure.
It was a structural message: don’t ask for help again.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit the language of law enforcement to obscure its role in silencing the disabled.
We do not confuse safety with obedience.
We do not allow trauma to go uncosted.

Let the record show:

The adjustment was in place.
The officers were aware.
The presence was unlawful.
And SWANK — filed for £1.1 million.

This isn’t a complaint.
It’s a financial ledger of state-licensed endangerment.



No comments:

Justice for Sale: £1.1 Million in Disability Damages from the Crown


⟡ The Court That Required My Voice — and Ignored My Lungs ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/JCIO/2025-DISABILITY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_JCIO_EvidenceBundle_CrownCourt_DisabilityViolation_TrialInjustice_£1.1MClaim.pdf

I. Justice for Sale: £1.1 Million in Disability Damages from the Crown

This submission to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) documents:

  • A Crown Court’s refusal to accommodate a written-only disability adjustment

  • Procedural disregard for respiratory collapse risk and trauma diagnoses

  • Institutional coercion masquerading as “trial preparation”

  • Psychological injury and litigation obstruction caused by enforced verbal exposure

The court didn’t need my voice.
It demanded it anyway — and then called that justice.

II. No Adjustment. No Participation. No Justice.

The evidence includes:

  • Chronology of denied accommodations

  • Emails confirming prior clinical documentation

  • Failed judicial oversight

  • Legal exclusion triggered not by law, but by ablist expectation

This wasn’t access to justice.
It was gatekeeping through phonics — in violation of statute, ethics, and human dignity.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because the courtroom is not exempt from law.
Because written-only adjustments are not “preferences” — they are medically grounded legal instruments.
Because when a court demands speech from a disabled claimant, it is no longer a tribunal — it is an engine of exclusion in robes.

Let the record show:

  • The risk was declared

  • The adjustment was dismissed

  • The exclusion was deliberate

  • And SWANK — filed it for £1.1 million

This isn’t contempt of court.
It’s contempt by court — and we returned it in evidence format.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit judicial architecture to disguise procedural abuse.
We do not accept that justice must be spoken aloud.
We do not allow the judiciary to reject medical truth without valuation.

Let the record show:

The courtroom wasn’t safe.
The judge ignored the file.
The law was breached.
And SWANK — filed every syllable in PDF.

This isn’t reformable.
It’s an archive of trial injustice, priced at £1.1 million, sealed in breath and refusal.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions