🕯 SWANK London Ltd.
✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-23-MPS-INVFAIL
Filed Under: Investigative Farce, Evidentiary Apathy, State-Sanctioned Incompetence
Filed By:
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2 6JL
✉ director@swanklondon.com
Date: 23 May 2025
To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
Customer Service Centre
PO Box 473, Warrington WA4 6QP
and/or
Metropolitan Police Service
Professional Standards Department
PO Box 78553, London SE11 1YU
🛑 FORMAL COMPLAINT
Failure to Investigate with Due Diligence, Law, or Basic Professional Decency
📜 A Complaint Composed in Disgust and Documentation
Dear Sir or Madam,
Consider this not a request, but a written reckoning.
I am lodging a formal complaint concerning the Metropolitan Police Service’s prolonged failure to investigate critical incidents concerning myself and my children — with anything resembling professionalism, integrity, or law.
🕳 Background: The Investigation That Wasn’t
Across 2023–2024, a series of investigations were carried out — or rather, cosplayed — by the Metropolitan Police. These actions, ostensibly initiated to assess incidents involving our family, failed to meet the most minimal standards of lawful inquiry.
Instead, I was presented with an illusion of investigation: all form, no substance.
All uniform, no truth.
⚖️ Key Failures Committed (Repeatedly, Without Shame)
• Critical CCTV and corroborating evidence ignored
• Witnesses left uninterviewed — as though relevance were optional
• Written submissions from me disregarded — no acknowledgment, no incorporation
• Process substituted with prejudice, escalating confusion into procedural harm
• Lasting damage — emotional, reputational, legal — inflicted by omission
📚 Legal Frameworks Breached (Spectacularly)
Breach of public duty to conduct timely, impartial, and thorough investigations
Violation of Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 — Right to a Fair Trial
Negligence and maladministration under statutory duties
Procedural sabotage masquerading as investigative discretion
The result: not just error, but deliberate underreach — a systemic shrug in the face of documented vulnerability.
🧾 Remedies Formally Demanded
I hereby require the following actions:
A comprehensive independent review of the case and its evidentiary suppression
An explanation — preferably in writing, not muttered through procedural fog — as to why key materials were ignored
Internal accountability for officers involved in negligent conduct
Written confirmation that new procedural safeguards will be instated
A formal written apology, addressed appropriately, acknowledging harm, failure, and the institutional rot underlying both
🖋 Communication Clause
Due to disability, I am formally exempt from verbal interaction.
This includes phone calls, in-person discussions, and other auditory performances.
All correspondence must be in writing only — a medium institutions find inconvenient precisely because it is permanent.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and outline the steps that shall (or shall not) follow.
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ noellebonneannee@me.com
“We do not scream. We file.” — Mirror Court Motto