⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – METROPOLITAN POLICE & CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE ⟡
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS-CPS/SECURITY-CLAIM-CORRECTION
Download PDF: 2025-05-23_Core_PC-121_CPSMetPolice_InaccurateSecurityClaimComplaint.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint addressed jointly to the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service, correcting the false statement that the complainant (Polly Chromatic) was “removed by hospital security” during an incident at St Thomas’ Hospital on 2 January 2024. The letter asserts that this claim is factually false, defamatory, and medically disproven, and demands immediate correction of all CPS and police records under the Data Protection Act 2018.
I. What Happened
On 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic (legally Noelle Bonnee Annee Simlett) attended St Thomas’ Hospital A&E in severe respiratory distress.
While struggling to breathe, she was repeatedly interrogated by a nurse who ignored visible medical incapacity.
In order to protect her health and her young daughter, Honor, she voluntarily left the room — unassisted and unescorted.
Despite this, official records in both Metropolitan Police and CPS case summaries (URN: 01LX1056024) falsely assert that she was “removed from the room by hospital security.”
This distortion transforms a disabled patient’s self-preserving exit into a criminalised narrative of disorder.
The truth was not inconvenient — it was simply ignored.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That no hospital security removal occurred — a categorical factual error propagated by state documentation.
• That the complainant’s actions were medically necessary and lawfully autonomous.
• That the misrepresentation has defamatory consequence, influencing criminal case interpretation.
• That this misinformation violates the accuracy principle of the Data Protection Act 2018 (s.171) and Article 5(1)(d) UK GDPR.
• That this single falsehood epitomises the bureaucratic reflex to pathologise disability and penalise self-protection.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To formally preserve the record of this falsehood and its correction demand.
• To connect this case with the parallel institutional misconduct logged in PC-122 (GSTT) — proving narrative coordination across NHS and justice bodies.
• To ensure that factual correction becomes the procedural remedy to institutional defamation.
• Because truth, once written, becomes evidence — but falsehood, if unchallenged, becomes precedent.
IV. Legal & Procedural Framework
Statutory Basis
• Data Protection Act 2018, s.171 – duty of accuracy in personal data.
• UK GDPR, Art. 16 – right to rectification.
• Equality Act 2010, ss.15 & 20 – discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 8 – right to personal dignity and privacy.
Oversight Avenues
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) – review of record inaccuracy and data breach.
• CPS Complaints & Victims’ Rights Review Scheme.
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – accuracy and rectification request oversight.
V. SWANK’s Position
“When the state lies by accident, it is negligence;
when it lies by pattern, it is policy.”
SWANK London Ltd. defines this incident as institutional falsification through repetition — the bureaucratic transmutation of disability into deviance.
The complainant’s lawful self-removal during a medical emergency was reimagined as ejection, and this fantasy has since travelled across agencies unexamined.
The correction request is therefore not clerical; it is constitutional — a demand for truth within an administrative ecosystem allergic to it.
⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.
This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And lies deserve correction.