“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 DPS complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DPS complaint. Show all posts

The Referral Was False. The Silence Was Coordinated. The Complaint Is Filed.


⟡ SWANK Archive: Criminal Misconduct Ledger ⟡

“This Was Not Misconduct. This Was Criminal.”
Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/DPS-SWE/RETALIATION-COLLUSION
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_CriminalMisconduct_Complaint_DPS_SWE_PoliceSocialWork_CollusionRetaliation.pdf

I. When Procedure Becomes Punishment, It’s Not Misconduct. It’s Malice.

On 29 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. submitted a joint complaint to the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) and Social Work England (SWE).

The charge was not rudeness.

It was institutional conspiracy: the coordinated use of referral, surveillance, and falsified concern to punish a disabled parent who had already filed legal claims.

II. What the Complaint Alleges

  • False safeguarding referrals initiated after legal proceedings began

  • Police visits in breach of written-only medical adjustments

  • Failure to disclose records required under data protection law

  • Collusion between social workers and officers, including:

    • Omissions

    • Silence

    • Unlawful “liaison”

    • And veiled threats disguised as neutral procedure

  • Specific individuals named under misconduct statutes and potential criminal liability, including:

    • Misfeasance in public office

    • Fraud by abuse of position

    • Harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This was not a policy failure.

It was a tactical operation dressed in politeness.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because not every injustice is civil.
Some are calculated, sustained, and coordinated across agencies — with the explicit goal of destabilisation, surveillance, and re-narrating the record.

We filed this because:

  • There was no trigger

  • There was no lawful threshold

  • There was only retaliation

Retaliation for:

  • Filing complaints

  • Naming misconduct

  • Refusing verbal interaction

  • And insisting that disability adjustments be honoured without performance or delay

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept weaponised procedure.
We do not mistake collusion for coincidence.
We do not permit police and social workers to function as an informal enforcement apparatus for state denial.

Let the record show:

The referral was false.
The threat was real.
The coordination was obvious.
And the complaint — is now public.

This was not safeguarding.
This was not liaison.
This was criminal conduct executed through email chains and weaponised silence.

⟡ 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:

You Can’t Regulate What You Protect. — That’s Why We Escalated It to You


⟡ Oversight Demanded. Misconduct Escalated. IOPC Notified. ⟡

“The pattern of harm across agencies is not coincidental. It is coordinated. And it is now on your desk.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/ESCALATION-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_IOPC_CoordinatedMisconduct_SafeguardingAbuseReviewRequest.pdf
A formal request to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) demanding review of a complaint submitted to the Metropolitan Police DPS. Allegations include collusion, evidence obstruction, and retaliatory safeguarding against a disabled legal claimant.

I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., submitted a formal request to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to review a complaint originally filed with the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS).

The complaint outlines:

  • Coordinated safeguarding abuse across police, social services, and NHS staff

  • Suppression of CCTV and SAR evidence critical to disproving harmful referrals

  • Retaliation after legal filings including civil claims and disability rights complaints

  • Violations of the Fraud Act 2006, Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998, and Equality Act 2010

  • A pattern of procedural obstruction and targeted disability-based policing

This request activates formal external regulatory oversight, moving the complaint beyond internal police review.

II. What the Filing Establishes

  • That the internal complaint has now escalated to independent oversight

  • That the pattern of retaliation and evidence deletion is multi-agency, not accidental

  • That the complainant has followed all procedural steps, despite obstruction

  • That SWANK has now formally placed the IOPC on notice

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the DPS cannot investigate what it protects.
Because the Metropolitan Police do not regulate themselves.
Because a system that retaliates, deletes evidence, and fabricates safeguarding threats must be regulated from outside — or not at all.

This isn't a grievance.
It’s a jurisdictional assertion.
And it's filed — elegantly, legally, and with full public record attached.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept coordinated harm as clerical error.
We do not accept safeguarding as a weapon.
We do not accept that “internal review” applies when the internal body is named in the complaint.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If you bury the footage,
We file the silence.
If you collude across agencies,
We escalate across jurisdictions.
And if the IOPC does not act,
They will be next on record.

⟡ 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 perm

No comments:

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

  • A 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions