⟡ “I Said I Was Ill. He Said ‘Please Stop Forwarding Me These Emails.’” ⟡
A short exchange with Metropolitan Police that proves it doesn’t take a paragraph to document disregard. Sometimes, a one-sentence response is all the negligence you need.
Filed: 15 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/MPS/DIS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-15_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_AminurRashid_DisabilityDismissal_MedicalDisclosure.pdf
Correspondence to the Metropolitan Police and Westminster safeguarding services disclosing active illness, breathing difficulty, and verbal disability. Officer Aminur Rashid replies with procedural disinterest and a command to stop emailing — fully cc’d to safeguarding.
I. What Happened
In mid-October 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an email to Westminster safeguarding and GP Dr Reid disclosing the following:
A fever
Difficulty breathing
Ongoing verbal trauma
A medical complaint against her GP
And a clear disability adjustment request to communicate via email only
This wasn’t an escalation. It was survival.
But the Metropolitan Police responded anyway. And what did they say?
“Please stop forwarding me to these emails.”
That’s it.
No welfare check. No referral. No concern.
Just silence, wrapped in administrative dismissal — and cc’d to safeguarding.
II. What the Email Establishes
That a lawful disability accommodation was requested
That police and safeguarding were notified of acute medical distress
That the reply from MPS was not protective — it was performative rejection
That systemic disregard can be boiled down to one reply
That the state saw a collapsing parent — and logged her as spam
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because there’s no need for speculation when they write it down for you. SWANK archived this to:
Prove that institutional actors received medical disclosures — and replied with dismissal
Demonstrate that verbal disability was documented and denied
Capture police refusal in the body of a single sentence
Establish the tone of systemic negligence before safeguarding escalation
This isn’t a dramatic letter. It’s worse: it’s a casual refusal to acknowledge human need.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Communication adjustment ignored
• Section 27: Retaliatory tone in response to medical disclosure
• Section 149: Public authority’s failure to eliminate discriminationHuman Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family and private life
• Article 3: Degrading treatment through indifferencePolice Code of Ethics –
• Respect for human dignity
• Responsibility to act with care toward vulnerable individualsNHS Duty of Candour & Coordination – Dr Reid’s inclusion is a medical safeguarding trigger point
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a failure to respond. It was a decision. A decision to view medically vulnerable people as inconveniences. A decision to ignore statutory adjustments. A decision to protect the inbox, not the individual.
SWANK London Ltd. recognises this as an official procedural rejection of medical reality, delivered by the Met in under 12 words.
⟡ 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.