“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 Met Police complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Met Police complaint. Show all posts

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:

IOPC File Number Issued. No Protection Supplied.


⟡ Acknowledged, Then Abandoned: The Art of the Regulatory Pass-Back ⟡

Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-007090
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_IOPC_Acknowledgement_MetPoliceComplaint_Ref2025-007090_NoActionImplied.pdf

I. The IOPC Responded. But Only Just.

This letter marks the formal receipt of complaint 2025/007090, filed against the Metropolitan Police Service — and promptly returned, jurisdictionally speaking, back to them.

What it includes:

  • A reference number

  • A procedural summary

  • A polite tone of removed concern

What it does not include:

  • Safeguarding of the complainant

  • Interim protection

  • Any sign that escalation means consequence

It is acknowledgement without intervention.
Format over follow-through.

II. “The Police Will Now Handle Your Complaint About the Police”

This letter confirms:

  • That the Met Police will “review” their own conduct

  • That the IOPC has passed along your evidence

  • That nothing — not trauma, not discrimination, not medical risk — triggered automatic oversight

It is the regulatory equivalent of a smile and a shrug.

What begins in breach ends in a bureaucratic loop.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because acknowledgement without action is its own form of administrative violence.
Because referencing a case number means nothing if the process is designed to collapse.
Because the very agencies meant to shield you from retaliation refer you straight back to the source of harm.

Let the record show:

  • The complaint was filed

  • The reply was received

  • The risk was unchanged

  • And SWANK — filed the reply, not the reassurance

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not confuse correspondence with justice.
We do not consider case numbers a substitute for protection.
We do not permit regulators to feign neutrality when neutrality enables abuse.

Let the record show:

The complaint was real.
The reference was issued.
The responsibility was deflected.
And SWANK — archived the abdication.

This is not oversight.
It is procedural disappearance, styled as concern.




No comments:

Documented Obsessions