⟡ Metropolitan Police — Covert Recording Allegation: The Sound of Administrative Deafness ⟡
Filed: 25 October 2025
Reference: SWANK/MetPolice/PC-065
Download PDF: 2025-10-25_Core_PC-065_MetPolice_Report_JulietteEro_CovertRecordingAllegation.pdf
Summary:
Formal report to the Metropolitan Police alleging covert audio-recording of parents and children at EveryChild Contact Centre, Goodmayes, constituting a potential data-offence under the Data Protection Act 2018 s.170 and exposing systemic contempt for safeguarding law.
I. What Happened
On 24 October 2025, during a scheduled supervised-contact session with my children, I experienced a stress-related asthma episode provoked by procedural hostility from staff member Juliette Ero.
After the incident, reliable sources indicated Ms Ero was covertly audio-recording families using a personal device while fixed CCTV operated without sound.
If accurate, the practice represents secret data capture of minors and parents without consent or lawful basis.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That EveryChild Contact Centre staff may have engaged in unauthorised audio surveillance of families.
• That Westminster-commissioned operators habitually disregard privacy, consent, and disability rights.
• That this constitutes a prima facie criminal breach under the Data Protection Act 2018 s.170.
• That the Metropolitan Police received full particulars yet have, to date, exhibited their usual interpretive slumber.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because someone must curate the evidence the authorities pretend not to hear.
This entry preserves the moment the State’s microphones met its moral vacuum.
It also establishes the SWANK evidentiary provenance for any future ICO or IOPC proceedings.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
• Data Protection Act 2018 s.170 – Unlawful obtaining or disclosure of personal data.
• Equality Act 2010 s.20 – Failure to accommodate written-communication adjustment.
• Children Act 1989 s.22(3)(a) – Duty to safeguard and promote welfare of children in care.
• Human Rights Act 1998 Art 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not “concern-raising.” This is a formal indictment of professional voyeurism.
We do not accept that “policy compliance” legitimises surveillance.
We reject the notion that parents under duress are public property.
We will document every whisper they thought was off-record.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every comma is deliberate. Every line is evidentiary.
This is not correspondence. This is legal couture for the administrative ill-mannered.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Unlicensed reproduction will be cited as panic, not authorship.