“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 IOPC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IOPC. Show all posts

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:

Disability, Gas Exposure, and the Criminalisation of Collapse


⟡ They Knew There Was CCTV. They Chose Not to Get It. ⟡

Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/2025-CCTV-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-22_SWANK_MetPolice_IOPC_CCTVFailure_DisabilityTrauma_CriminalAllegation_StThomas.pdf

I. The Footage Would Have Cleared It. They Never Asked for It.

This formal complaint was submitted to both the Metropolitan Police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), following their failure to secure time-sensitive CCTV from St Thomas’ Hospital — footage that would have captured:

  • A disabled mother in visible medical distress

  • A child abandoned by hospital staff

  • Multiple criminal allegations later weaponised against her

  • The systemic negligence of a healthcare setting posing as sanctuary

The footage existed.
The police knew it.
They did nothing — except file the incident against her name.

II. Disability as Pretext, Not Protection

This letter details:

  • Documented disability (Eosinophilic Asthma, muscle dysphonia, trauma collapse)

  • A documented gas exposure event

  • A child left in distress without medical staff present

  • No safeguarding breach by the parent — yet all suspicion aimed at her

Meanwhile:

  • Police failed to interview staff

  • Failed to secure CCTV

  • Failed to prevent reputational harm

  • But managed to “note concerns” with suspicious enthusiasm

This wasn’t policing.
It was a preloaded narrative dressed in badge logic.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because CCTV isn’t just footage — it’s protection for the truth.
Because omitting retrieval is a selective forgetting that harms only one side.
Because when you're a disabled woman, the burden is always to prove you weren’t already guilty — even while gasping for air.

Let the record show:

  • The footage was accessible

  • The officers were informed

  • The deadline passed

  • And SWANK — recorded the inaction as evidence

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not believe that oversight is neutral.
We do not permit post-incident amnesia to replace accountability.
We do not accept “lack of footage” when failure to collect it was strategic.

Let the record show:

The child was harmed.
The mother collapsed.
The footage was lost.
The system protected itself.
And SWANK — filed every second they tried to erase.

This is not about CCTV.
It is about how institutions curate memory to protect themselves from truth.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions