“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label CCTV Suppression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCTV Suppression. Show all posts

Chromatic v St Thomas’ NHS & MPS: On the Willful Ignoring of a Police Report That Didn’t Suit the Safeguarding Narrative



⟡ Filed While Gasping (v2): The Police Report They Ignored So They Could Blame the Victim Instead ⟡
On the audacity of inverting a gasping woman into a criminal suspect — while CCTV sat unbothered in the corner


Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-FALSEINVERSION-20240102
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault_v2.pdf
Summary: Police report filed by Polly Chromatic after she was verbally assaulted at St Thomas' A&E while struggling to breathe. The report was never acted on — but she was.


I. What Happened

On the night of 2 November 2023, Polly Chromatic presented at St Thomas’ Hospital with severe eosinophilic asthma. Dizzy and unable to stand from oxygen deprivation, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while reaching a seat.

A woman in the waiting room launched into verbal abuse — racial, public, and aggressive. Polly, trying to hear the nurse, asked the woman to stop.

She was then moved calmly to another room by hospital staff.
The event was caught on CCTV.

The next day, Polly filed a formal police report: verbal assault, racially charged, triggered by a medical emergency.

She identified the suspect. She requested CCTV be reviewed.
She described what happened, what could be seen, and what couldn’t be denied.

But nothing came of it.
Instead — she became the subject of a safeguarding referral alleging she had attacked someone else.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Verbal abuse against a disabled mother during medical crisis

  • No de-escalation or staff intervention in the moment

  • Police report filed — and ignored

  • Hospital never investigated or submitted CCTV footage

  • The victim was recast as the aggressor by later social work teams

  • The original report was buried in favour of a narrative that facilitated child removal and psychiatric review


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how state lies begin:
With the erasure of first-hand reports and the inversion of credibility.
Because when a woman says: “I was attacked in public, while breathless, and my daughter saw everything”, the response should not be: “Let’s refer you to safeguarding.”

This police report is not just a form. It is a contested origin point.
The narrative reversal that follows can be traced back to this moment:
A breathless woman, filing a report —
Only to become the accused.

SWANK archives it to remind every authority involved:
We did tell you the truth. You just refused to read it.


IV. Violations

  • Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment

  • Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair investigation

  • Article 8, ECHR – Respect for family life (daughter witnessed abuse)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to protect a disabled woman from discrimination

  • Police Code of Ethics – Failure to follow up on a report from a vulnerable person

  • NHS Duty of Candour – No acknowledgment or corrective communication from the hospital


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a plea for protection — filed while breathless, traumatised, and trying to keep her daughter safe.

We reject the erasure of disability and race in public abuse cases.
We reject the failure to review CCTV because doing so would vindicate the mother.
And we reject any safeguarding structure built atop a lie they were too lazy — or too biased — to disprove.

The hospital saw the abuse. The police were told. The state rewrote the victim.
We will correct the record, line by line.


⟡ 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.

We Asked for the Footage. They Protected the Lie. — Collusion, Retaliation, and Police Silence by Design



⟡ Criminal Complaint Filed Against the Met ⟡

“This is not administrative failure. This is coordinated institutional harm.”

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/CRIMINAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_MetPolice_CriminalBreach_DPSReferralRequest.pdf
A formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), alleging collusion, obstruction of evidence, and retaliation against a disabled legal claimant. A referral to the IOPC was requested.


I. What Happened

On 29 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police DPS, citing:

  • Failure to obtain CCTV evidence critical to disproving social service allegations

  • Known collusion between local officers and social workers with a history of fabricated reports

  • Retaliatory conduct in the form of criminal investigation threats following lawful civil action

  • Disability-based obstruction through refusal to honour her written-only communication adjustment

The complaint demands escalation to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and lists multiple statutory violations.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • criminal breach of procedural duty by the Metropolitan Police

  • Coordinated abuse of safeguarding powers across police and social services

  • Tampering with access to justice by obstructing exculpatory material

  • Retaliation for invoking civil, disability, and human rights law

  • A call for external regulation, citing lack of internal accountability


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Metropolitan Police is not exempt from evidentiary filing — especially when the misconduct is this structural.

When law enforcement fails to investigate truth,
When it colludes with already-flagged institutions,
When it becomes the shield for those who target the disabled —
SWANK doesn’t hesitate.
We escalate.

This is not just about one complaint.
It’s about a systematic refusal to protect, masked as public duty.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept policing as performance.
We do not accept safeguarding as a retaliatory tool.
We do not accept the deletion of justice by way of silence, delay, or complicity.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If CCTV disappears,
We file the deletion.
If law enforcers protect each other,
We name them.
And if the IOPC doesn’t act —
We publish that too.


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.