⟡ FORMAL COMPLAINT – INDEPENDENT OFFICE FOR POLICE CONDUCT (IOPC) ⟡
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/DISABILITY-PROCEDURAL-HARASSMENT-2025
Download PDF: 2025-05-21_Core_PC-115_IOPC_DisabilityDiscrimination-ProceduralHarassment.pdf
Summary: Formal complaint submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) regarding the Metropolitan Police Service’s discriminatory treatment of a disabled mother and her four children, failure to investigate false allegations, and procedural complicity in medical retaliation. This entry represents the first SWANK Police Accountability Dossier, establishing police discrimination as both evidentiary category and aesthetic pattern.
I. What Happened
On 21 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the IOPC Complaints Team via email.
The filing documented systemic misconduct by Metropolitan Police officers between January 2024 and May 2025, including:
• Failure to investigate false allegations initiated by Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust;
• Neglect in securing CCTV footage from St Thomas’ Hospital that would have exonerated the complainant;
• Participation in discriminatory safeguarding misuse, culminating in a late-night intrusion at the Holiday Inn High Street Kensington;
• Procedural coercion through verbal interaction during a documented medical crisis, in breach of written-only adjustments prescribed by Dr. Irfan Rafiq (26 November 2024).
The officers’ conduct reflected not error, but orchestration — bureaucratic obedience to prejudice.
II. What the Document Establishes
• That the Metropolitan Police acted in concert with discriminatory medical narratives.
• That their refusal to retrieve exculpatory CCTV constitutes procedural bias and negligence.
• That safeguarding referrals became instruments of retaliation, not protection.
• That institutional harassment can be performed in polite tones, via protocol, with devastating precision.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To crystallise a year-long pattern of disability discrimination across police and medical interfaces.
• To assert jurisdictional oversight where oversight itself has collapsed.
• To preserve the evidentiary chain connecting NHS falsification, CPS misconduct, and police negligence.
• Because bureaucracy, once aestheticised, can no longer hide behind procedure.
IV. Legal & Regulatory Framework
Domestic Law:
• Equality Act 2010, ss. 20, 21, 29 — failure to accommodate disability, discriminatory provision of public service.
• Human Rights Act 1998, Arts. 6 & 8 — denial of fair process, interference with family and private life.
• Police Reform Act 2002, Part 2 — duty of IOPC to investigate serious misconduct and procedural failure.
• Data Protection Act 2018, s.171 — failure to maintain factual accuracy in evidentiary records.
Supporting Filings Referenced:
• N1 Civil Claim – disability discrimination and safeguarding misuse.
• N461 Judicial Review – procedural retaliation and Equality Act breaches.
• N16A Injunction – prevention of continued interference.
V. SWANK’s Position
“When the police inherit a hospital’s lie, the uniform becomes costume.”
SWANK London Ltd. recognises the Metropolitan Police’s conduct as a case study in procedural harassment — discrimination laundered through paperwork, and obedience elevated into harm.
The complaint is not only evidentiary; it is architectural — a structure of written resistance against the choreography of impunity.
This document converts bureaucratic cruelty into permanent record.
Where the police failed to investigate, SWANK will curate.
⟡ 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 misconduct deserves narrative.
And authority deserves annotation.