“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 Metropolitan Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metropolitan Police. Show all posts

Her Oxygen Was Low. Their Empathy Was Lower.



⟡ She Reported Disability Symptoms. He Replied, “Please Stop.” ⟡
Metropolitan Police Officer Aminur Rashid responds to a safeguarding-related medical update the only way he knows how: with contempt.

Filed: 15 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/EMAIL-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2024-10-15_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_DisabilityDismissal_AminurRashid.pdf
An email chain documenting the parent’s attempt to update professionals — including NHS and safeguarding staff — about severe breathing complications and GP failures. Officer Aminur Rashid’s reply: “Please stop forwarding me to these emails.”


I. What Happened

The parent — disabled, non-verbal, and responsible for four children — issued a health alert.
Her oxygen was dropping. Her GP had failed to act.
She forwarded the information to relevant professionals, as instructed.
Officer Aminur Rashid responded with a single line:
“Please stop forwarding me to these emails.”
No question. No concern. No duty of care.
Just digital dismissal in the face of medical risk.


II. What the Email Establishes

  • That a serving Metropolitan Police officer dismissed a disabled parent’s urgent health report

  • That this occurred during active safeguarding scrutiny and legal reporting

  • That institutional actors were present on the thread and did not intervene

  • That respiratory symptoms and housing-related medical risk were not investigated


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because telling a disabled parent to “stop emailing” about their own survival is not just rude — it’s dereliction.
Because public institutions should not require a death certificate before they start listening.
And because this wasn’t a meltdown — it was a medical fact.
Ignored.


IV. Violations Identified

  • Neglect of Duty in Police Safeguarding Context

  • Discrimination by Dismissal of Medically Disabled Reporting Parent

  • Failure to Investigate Documented Health Risk

  • Obstruction of Health Disclosure via Verbal Shutdown

  • Multi-agency Complicity Through Non-Response


V. SWANK’s Position

You don’t get to ask for communication and then punish it.
You don’t get to demand updates and then delete them unread.
This was not excessive — it was survival.
And now, it’s evidence.
Let it be known: when she was short of breath, the police ran out of patience first.


⟡ 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.

The Record Says Removed. The Truth Says Suffocating.



⟡ SWANK Criminal Record Correction Notice ⟡

“I Left Because I Couldn’t Breathe. They Filed It as Force.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/CPS/METPOL/2025-05-23
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_CPSPoliceComplaint_InaccurateSecurityClaim_StThomasIncident.pdf


I. They Filed the Lie. We Filed the Correction.

On 23 May 2025, SWANK London Ltd. issued a formal complaint and correction notice to the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police regarding an inaccurate incident claim filed in judicial and police records.

The claim:

That our Director, a disabled patient, was “removed by security” from St Thomas’ Hospital.

The reality:

She left voluntarily, unaided, and in respiratory distress — following clinical mishandling, unlawful delay, and procedural hostility.
She tested positive for COVID-19 the following day.
She had an active diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma.
She was not removed. She was endangered.


II. What the Complaint Clarifies

The submission to CPS and the Metropolitan Police details:

  • The fabrication of “security removal” in the MG5 (case summary)

  • The absence of any such action in hospital CCTV or staff documentation

  • Medical evidence showing the patient was mid-asthma collapse

  • Clinical failure to accommodate disability adjustments

  • Institutional refusal to acknowledge the resulting harm — physical and reputational

This was not a safeguarding incident.
This was a defamatory act of record tampering, committed through silence and assumption.


III. Why This Filing Was Necessary

Because police summaries become court documents.
Because what is said casually on a form becomes lawful myth unless contested.
Because disability should not be rewritten as deviance, and
Because breathlessness is not misconduct.

SWANK issued this complaint not as a plea, but as record control.

We do not allow “security removal” to become shorthand for institutional inconvenience.
We do not permit lies to fossilise.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We left that hospital because breathing became impossible.
They left the truth because accountability was inconvenient.

Let the record show:

We were not removed.
We walked.
And now we’ve filed.

This document now lives in the archive — not for rebuttal, but for citation.
And should the CPS or police decline to correct the falsehood, that omission becomes part of the next filing.


⟡ 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.



The Investigation That Wasn’t: Police Inaction, Evidentiary Silence, and the Cost of Being Ignored



πŸ•― 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


πŸ›‘ FORMAL COMPLAINT

Failure to Investigate with Due Diligence, Law, or Basic Professional Decency


πŸ“œ 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.


πŸ•³ 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


πŸ“š 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:

  1. comprehensive independent review of the case and its evidentiary suppression

  2. An explanation — preferably in writing, not muttered through procedural fog — as to why key materials were ignored

  3. Internal accountability for officers involved in negligent conduct

  4. Written confirmation that new procedural safeguards will be instated

  5. formal written apology, addressed appropriately, acknowledging harm, failure, and the institutional rot underlying both


πŸ–‹ 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

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
πŸ“Ž 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 2006Children Act 1989Human 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

We Asked for the Footage. They Protected the Lie. — Collusion, Retaliation, and Police Silence by Design



⟡ Criminal Complaint Filed Against the Met ⟡

“This is not administrative failure. This is coordinated institutional harm.”

Filed: 29 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/CRIMINAL-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-05-29_SWANK_MetPolice_CriminalBreach_DPSReferralRequest.pdf
A formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), alleging collusion, obstruction of evidence, and retaliation against a disabled legal claimant. A referral to the IOPC was requested.


I. What Happened

On 29 May 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police DPS, citing:

  • Failure to obtain CCTV evidence critical to disproving social service allegations

  • Known collusion between local officers and social workers with a history of fabricated reports

  • Retaliatory conduct in the form of criminal investigation threats following lawful civil action

  • Disability-based obstruction through refusal to honour her written-only communication adjustment

The complaint demands escalation to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and lists multiple statutory violations.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • criminal breach of procedural duty by the Metropolitan Police

  • Coordinated abuse of safeguarding powers across police and social services

  • Tampering with access to justice by obstructing exculpatory material

  • Retaliation for invoking civil, disability, and human rights law

  • A call for external regulation, citing lack of internal accountability


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Metropolitan Police is not exempt from evidentiary filing — especially when the misconduct is this structural.

When law enforcement fails to investigate truth,
When it colludes with already-flagged institutions,
When it becomes the shield for those who target the disabled —
SWANK doesn’t hesitate.
We escalate.

This is not just about one complaint.
It’s about a systematic refusal to protect, masked as public duty.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept policing as performance.
We do not accept safeguarding as a retaliatory tool.
We do not accept the deletion of justice by way of silence, delay, or complicity.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If CCTV disappears,
We file the deletion.
If law enforcers protect each other,
We name them.
And if the IOPC doesn’t act —
We publish that too.


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.


The Clock Hasn’t Started Because You Haven’t Jumped Through Our Hoops Yet



⟡ “We Can't Process Your Data Request Until You Prove You Exist — Again.” ⟡
Metropolitan Police Refuses to Process Subject Access Request Until Additional ID and Address Documentation Are Resubmitted

Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/ROA-REJECT-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_Letter_MPS_ROARequest_Rejected_ProcedureDelay.pdf
Summary: MPS formally rejects processing of a Right of Access request, citing insufficient ID/address verification. The 30-day response timeline will not begin until further documents are received.


I. What Happened

On 17 May 2025, Polly Chromatic (Noelle Simlett) submitted a Right of Access request to the MPS under the Data Protection Act 2018.

On 23 May 2025, the MPS issued this formal response stating:

– They cannot proceed without additional proof of address (dated within the last 6 months)
– They require further proof of identity
– For third-party data (children, other adults), formal authority documents must be supplied
– The 30-day processing clock will not start until documentation is resubmitted

They include a link to the third-party consent template and advise against sending original documents.


II. What the Letter Establishes

• The MPS received the request but will not process it until new supporting documentation is sent
• They are invoking procedural delays to defer their data disclosure obligations
• This creates a bureaucratic loop that disproportionately burdens disabled or chronically surveilled individuals
• It demonstrates how the 30-day legal deadline is effectively paused by agency discretion
• The rejection email becomes a tactical time reset that obscures state data retention and use


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how denial hides in delay.
Because rejecting a legal access request on formality does not erase the request — it reveals resistance.
Because when the law says “you must respond in 30 days,” and the state replies “only if we say the request is valid,” that’s a power play — not a protection.

SWANK documents when access is denied not in law, but in logistics.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that legal rights to data are conditional on resubmitting what was already provided.
We do not accept that timelines can be paused at the institution’s convenience.
We do not accept that access to truth should be procedurally fragile.

This wasn’t a refusal. It was a stall.
And SWANK will archive every attempt to timeout your request into invisibility.


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.


Discrimination in Uniform: When the Police Ignore the Law They Enforce



⟡ SWANK Police Misconduct Archive ⟡
“Formal Complaint – But Informality Was Their Crime”
Filed: 10 March 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/MET-DISCRIM-FAILURE-01
πŸ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-03-10_SWANK_IOPC_MetPolice_Misconduct_Disability_Discrimination_Complaint.pdf


I. This Wasn’t a Misunderstanding. It Was Calculated Neglect in Uniform.

On 10 March 2025, a formal complaint was submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), detailing the Metropolitan Police’s:

  • Failure to investigate harassment

  • Disability discrimination

  • Retaliatory misconduct following lawful safeguarding disclosures

What began as calls for help were met with silence, dismissal, and — in some instances — physical presence at the door, despite written-only communication requirements.

This wasn’t an isolated incident.
It was a sustained choreography of procedural erosion.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the Metropolitan Police:

  • Ignored credible reports of institutional harassment

  • Disregarded documented disability adjustments

  • Weaponised safeguarding as a tool of intimidation

  • Prioritised authority over protection

And that these failures were not due to misunderstanding — they were a refusal to engage with written legal truths.

This complaint is a map of misconduct in the key of silence.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because asking for protection shouldn’t expose you to further harm.
Because failure to investigate isn’t neutral — it’s an administrative green light to abusers.
Because every time an institution “forgets” your diagnosis, it’s remembering its power.

We filed this because:

  • The harm was procedural, not accidental

  • The silence was patterned, not passive

  • The disregard for disability was institutional, not personal

Let the record show:

The police received safeguarding reports.
They ignored them.
They showed up instead.
And SWANK — responded with documentation, not fear.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that uniformed neglect deserves deference.
We do not accept police “oversight” when what’s missing is the will to act.
We do not tolerate safeguarding used as a pretext for retaliation.

Let the record show:

The complaint was filed.
The attachments were logged.
The misconduct was named.
And SWANK — is the archive they didn’t expect to be filing back.

This wasn’t a cry for help.
It was a forensic rebuke.


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.


Retaliation Is a Pattern. We Filed the Pattern.

With jurisdictional gravitas and colonial disdain, Polly, here is your SWANKified blog post for the 18 May 2025 Police Medical Endangerment Record — a trans-Atlantic reckoning of two police forces, ten years, zero accountability, and one unbroken chain of state-endorsed harm.


⟡ A Decade of Police-Endorsed Harm: From TCI to London ⟡

Filed: 18 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/POLICE/TCI-MPS-ENDANGERMENT
πŸ“Ž Download PDF — 2025-05-18_SWANK_Record_PoliceMedicalEndangerment_CrossJurisdiction_TCIMPS_HateCrime_DisabilityRetaliation.pdf


I. Retaliation Is a Pattern. We Filed the Pattern.

This document — filed under dual sovereignty and sustained insult — spans 2016 to 2025, and catalogues:

  • Retaliatory safeguarding threats by state officers

  • Police obstruction of medical aid during active emergencies

  • Failure to investigate hate-motivated threats

  • Complicity in unlawful safeguarding referrals against a disabled mother

It is not one complaint.
It is a record of ten years' worth of sanctioned collapse.

They were notified.
They obstructed.
They recorded their harm in procedural voice.
And SWANK — filed it in ours.


II. Two Forces. One Tactic.

The TCI Police and the Metropolitan Police operated under different flags but identical philosophies:

  • Ignore medical risk

  • Default to suspicion over care

  • Use safeguarding as a pretext for control

  • Withhold legal protection, especially when the victim is female, disabled, and non-compliant with silence

In TCI, they let the landlord call the police.
In London, they acted like landlords with badges.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because when emergency services become the harm, there is no “report” — only evidence.
Because when institutional bodies coordinate against the disabled, it becomes litigation, not liaison.
Because police forces across jurisdictions colluded in the same fiction: that disability was deviance and complaint was threat.

Let the record show:

  • The pattern crossed oceans

  • The misconduct repeated

  • The lives endangered were real

  • And SWANK — filed the symmetry

This is not historical.
It is still unfolding — now formally preserved.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept police refusal as oversight.
We do not permit safeguarding weaponisation to cross borders without citation.
We do not redact the names of the forces that endangered children to punish their mother.

Let the record show:

The officers were told.
The asthma was real.
The retaliation was procedural.
And SWANK — documented ten years of failure, so the courts don’t forget.

This isn’t a police complaint.
It’s an evidentiary indictment — filed across kingdoms.







Documented Obsessions