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

Misuse of Power. Misuse of Process. Complaint Filed.


⟡ SWANK Archive: Procedural Misconduct Index ⟡

“This Wasn’t Policing. This Was Procedure as Punishment.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-MET/PROCEDURAL-ABUSE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_IOPC_Complaint_MetPolice_ProceduralAbuse_DisabilityDiscrimination.pdf

I. When the Procedure Is the Threat, the Badge Is Secondary.

This formal complaint, addressed to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), concerns the Metropolitan Police’s calculated abuse of safeguarding procedure — not to protect, but to destabilise.

The complainant?
A disabled mother with a written-only adjustment and a legal archive.
The context?
A history of documented institutional harm and lawful complaints already filed.

And yet — they escalated.

This wasn’t a mistake.

It was a tactic in plainclothes format.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • Use of safeguarding language to bypass legal thresholds

  • In-person police attendance in violation of a documented written-only communication adjustment

  • Clear evidence of:

    • Procedural overreach

    • Retaliatory escalation

    • Administrative harassment disguised as liaison

  • Violations of:

    • Article 6 (Fair Process)

    • Article 8 (Family and Private Life)

    • Article 14 (Discrimination)

    • Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination & Victimisation)

This was not public protection.

It was institutional messaging, delivered through procedural misuse.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because there is a point where safeguarding is no longer a tool of care.
It becomes a weapon of discipline — wielded against those who file, refuse, or remember too much.

We filed this because:

  • Written-only adjustments are not optional.

  • Disability rights are not “courtesies.”

  • Police action without lawful trigger is not care — it is coercion by process.

Let the record show:

  • There was no emergency.

  • There was no proportionality.

  • There was only escalation — and now, there is complaint.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept safeguarding used as social punishment.
We do not permit law enforcement to operate as an instrument of complaint deterrence.
We do not redact misconduct merely because it arrives with a badge.

Let the record show:

Procedure was misused.
Disability was ignored.
Rights were breached.
And SWANK has filed the consequence.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
This wasn’t enforcement.
This was retaliation dressed in compliance.

⟡ 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 permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

The Police Were Informed. Then They Retaliated.


⟡ SWANK Police Retaliation Archive ⟡

“I Filed a Report. They Filed Me.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/MET-POLICE/RETALIATION-2025
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_IOPC_Complaint_MetPolice_Retaliation_After_MisconductReports.pdf

I. This Was Not a Safeguarding Concern. It Was Retaliation by Uniform.

This complaint, filed with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and Metropolitan Police Professional Standards, details a familiar tactic:

You report them.
They “report” you.

Following multiple lawful complaints regarding medical endangerment, disability breach, and collusive inaction, the Metropolitan Police responded not with accountability — but with referral theatre and procedural escalation.

This wasn’t about child welfare.
It was about silencing the mother who wouldn’t drop the pen.

II. What the Complaint Documents

  • A disabled parent lawfully filed reports regarding:

    • Safeguarding misuse

    • Police failure to protect during hospital incidents

    • Disability discrimination and harassment

  • In response, the police:

    • Escalated unfounded safeguarding action

    • Failed to uphold communication adjustments

    • Enabled or coordinated with social work retaliation

    • Operated outside threshold, without legal justification, and in full knowledge of the family’s medical record

This wasn’t concern.

It was administrative revenge, dressed in clipboard language.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because police misconduct doesn’t always come with sirens.
Sometimes it arrives in polite emails, escalated “liaison”, and strategic safeguarding chatter.

We filed this because:

  • The parent was not unsafe.

  • The children were not in need.

  • The problem was that she had filed too many complaints — and they noticed.

Let the record show:

  • There was no new evidence.

  • There was only new punishment.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept procedural escalation as apology for ignored misconduct.
We do not permit police to function as enforcement arms for agency embarrassment.
We do not confuse state protection with state revenge.

Let the record show:

The mother reported the misconduct.
The police responded by reporting her.
The archive responded by filing this complaint — and making it public.

This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was retaliation with a badge.

⟡ 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 permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

Complaint Received. Clarification Requested. Accountability Postponed.


⟡ SWANK Police Misconduct Archive ⟡

“They Asked Who I Meant. As If It Wasn’t Written.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/DPS/PC01767/2025-04-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-03_SWANK_MetPolice_Response_Request_DiscriminationComplaint_PC01767.pdf

I. They Received a Complaint. Then Forgot How to Read.

On 3 April 2025, SWANK London Ltd. received a reply from the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) regarding our formal complaint of disability discrimination, safeguarding negligence, and procedural harm.

Their reply?

A request for clarification on “who the complaint is about.”

Despite:

  • A subject line identifying the Met

  • An incident described in full

  • An original complaint addressed directly to them

II. What the Email Reveals

  • That even the simplest discrimination complaints are rerouted into semantic obscurity

  • That procedural delay is cloaked in polite inquiry

  • That DPS correspondence routinely reframes misconduct as:

    “a misunderstanding between services”
    Rather than institutional accountability

  • That despite having email headers, dates, and diagnoses, the system's first move is to disorient

This isn’t confusion.
It’s strategy — and it’s archived.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we no longer entertain the dance.
Because clarity is not the issue — institutional refusal is.

We logged this because:

  • It shows how early-stage derailment works

  • It previews how complaints are softened into “communication issues”

  • It marks the first excuse, so it can never be used again without contradiction

Let the record show:

They asked who the complaint was about.
It said "Met Police" in the subject line.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not re-explain what was already made plain.
We publish the question — and let the public answer it.

We do not interpret bad faith as administrative error.
We interpret it as foreseeable, strategic misdirection.

Let the record show:

The complaint was filed.
The facts were laid out.
And the first reply — was a pretend misunderstanding.

This isn’t dialogue.
It’s delay-by-design.
And now, it’s in the archive.

⟡ 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 permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions