Showing posts with label Metropolitan Police. Show all posts

Chromatic v Metropolitan Police Service: A Catalogue of Complicity in Retaliatory Safeguarding

⚖️ Audit Demand of Metropolitan Police Service – Safeguarding Retaliation & Police Complicity

📌 Metadata

Filed: 19 August 2025
Reference: SWANK Audit – MPS Retaliation & Complicity
Filename: 2025-08-19_SWANK_Audit_MPS_RetaliationComplicity.pdf
Summary: A velvet demand compelling the Metropolitan Police to disclose their role in enforcing Westminster’s retaliatory Emergency Protection Order and failures to investigate racial abuse, harassment, and disability discrimination.

I. What Happened

Polly Chromatic issued a formal Audit Demand requiring the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to disclose its records and correspondence surrounding:

The St Thomas’ Hospital incident (2 January 2024) — when police declined to obtain exculpatory CCTV and mishandled racial abuse allegations.
The hotel attendance (January 2024), where safeguarding was deployed not as protection but as pretext.
All safeguarding-linked attendances at the family home between 2024–2025.
The execution of the Emergency Protection Order (23 June 2025), in which the MPS assisted Westminster in retaliatory removal.
The non-investigation of harassment and abuse reports, filed repeatedly by the mother but ignored.
The misuse of disability disclosures in categorising the family.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

That the MPS abandoned neutrality, aligning itself with Westminster’s vendetta.
That instead of protecting children, the police enforced an order rooted in disproven allegations.
That institutional retaliation was not only tolerated but actively abetted by the state’s armed agents.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the police must never become the handmaidens of concealment.
Because safeguarding powers cannot be converted into weapons of bureaucratic revenge.
Because silence in the face of harassment reports is not procedure, but complicity.

IV. Violations

Data Protection Act 2018 & UK GDPR – failures of transparency.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – misuse of authority.
Children Act 1989 – breach of the welfare principle.
Equality Act 2010 – race and disability discrimination.
Articles 6 & 8 ECHR – denial of fair process and family life.

V. SWANK’s Position

The Metropolitan Police have been summoned to account for their role in a retaliatory seizure of four American children.
The demand is velvet, but the expectation is iron: disclose or be disclosed.
Where safeguarding is perverted into state violence, SWANK writes it down in gold ink and ensures the record survives the whitewash.

Closing Declaration

This Audit Demand forms part of the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue and the Family Court record.
It will be escalated to the ICO, the IOPC, and international monitors if not met within 14 days.

✒️ Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.

Chromatic v St Thomas’ NHS & MPS: On the Willful Ignoring of a Police Report That Didn’t Suit the Safeguarding Narrative

⟡ Filed While Gasping (v2): The Police Report They Ignored So They Could Blame the Victim Instead ⟡
On the audacity of inverting a gasping woman into a criminal suspect — while CCTV sat unbothered in the corner

Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-FALSEINVERSION-20240102
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault_v2.pdf
Summary: Police report filed by Polly Chromatic after she was verbally assaulted at St Thomas' A&E while struggling to breathe. The report was never acted on — but she was.

I. What Happened

On the night of 2 November 2023, Polly Chromatic presented at St Thomas’ Hospital with severe eosinophilic asthma. Dizzy and unable to stand from oxygen deprivation, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while reaching a seat.

A woman in the waiting room launched into verbal abuse — racial, public, and aggressive. Polly, trying to hear the nurse, asked the woman to stop.

She was then moved calmly to another room by hospital staff.
The event was caught on CCTV.

The next day, Polly filed a formal police report: verbal assault, racially charged, triggered by a medical emergency.

She identified the suspect. She requested CCTV be reviewed.
She described what happened, what could be seen, and what couldn’t be denied.

But nothing came of it.
Instead — she became the subject of a safeguarding referral alleging she had attacked someone else.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Verbal abuse against a disabled mother during medical crisis
No de-escalation or staff intervention in the moment
Police report filed — and ignored
Hospital never investigated or submitted CCTV footage
The victim was recast as the aggressor by later social work teams
The original report was buried in favour of a narrative that facilitated child removal and psychiatric review

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is how state lies begin:
With the erasure of first-hand reports and the inversion of credibility.
Because when a woman says: “I was attacked in public, while breathless, and my daughter saw everything”, the response should not be: “Let’s refer you to safeguarding.”

This police report is not just a form. It is a contested origin point.
The narrative reversal that follows can be traced back to this moment:
A breathless woman, filing a report —
Only to become the accused.

SWANK archives it to remind every authority involved:
We did tell you the truth. You just refused to read it.

IV. Violations

Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment
Article 6, ECHR – Right to a fair investigation
Article 8, ECHR – Respect for family life (daughter witnessed abuse)
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to protect a disabled woman from discrimination
Police Code of Ethics – Failure to follow up on a report from a vulnerable person
NHS Duty of Candour – No acknowledgment or corrective communication from the hospital

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a complaint. It was a plea for protection — filed while breathless, traumatised, and trying to keep her daughter safe.

We reject the erasure of disability and race in public abuse cases.
We reject the failure to review CCTV because doing so would vindicate the mother.
And we reject any safeguarding structure built atop a lie they were too lazy — or too biased — to disprove.

The hospital saw the abuse. The police were told. The state rewrote the victim.
We will correct the record, line by line.

⟡ 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.

Chromatic v St Thomas’ Hospital: On the Inversion of Victimhood and the Weaponisation of Misdiagnosis After Verbal Assault

⟡ Filed While Gasping: The Hospital Assault They Tried to Frame as Mine ⟡
On the institutional audacity of calling the victim a perpetrator while she was too breathless to speak

Filed: 12 July 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/STTHOMAS-ASSAULT-20240102
📎 Download PDF – 2024-01-02_PoliceReport_StThomasHospital_VerbalAssault.pdf
Summary: Police report submitted by Polly Chromatic after being verbally abused while gasping for air at St Thomas’ A&E. CCTV confirms she was the victim.

I. What Happened

On the night of 2 January 2024, Polly Chromatic presented to St Thomas’ Hospital in a state of acute respiratory distress. She was dizzy from oxygen deprivation and unable to stand upright. During triage, she accidentally stepped on someone’s foot while attempting to sit.

An unrelated woman — a stranger seated in the back row — launched into loud, targeted verbal abuse. Polly, unable to hear the nurse through the attack, asked the woman to be quiet. Instead, the verbal assault escalated.

Polly filed a police report the very next day:
Verbal abuse, racially motivated targeting, disability-related vulnerability.
She specifically identified that the hospital had CCTV footage confirming the events — including her medical distress, her daughter’s presence, and the abusive behavior of the other woman.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Clear victimisation of a disabled mother in medical crisis
Targeted verbal assault in a hospital setting with no immediate intervention
Racial and disability-based aggression confirmed via self-report and visible footage
Submission of a police report that was subsequently ignored — while Polly was instead referred for psychiatric review
Institutional erasure of a documented assault in favour of redirecting blame onto the patient herself

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this incident triggered a catastrophic misdiagnosis —
St Thomas’ staff later alleged Polly had attacked someone, weaponising the racist and inaccurate inversion of events to launch a safeguarding escalation that led, months later, to the removal of her children.

This was the origin point.
The moment the truth was inverted.
The beginning of the safeguarding fiction.

What began as a woman reporting an assault became the false basis for criminal suspicion and psychiatric referral — all while the original attacker walked away, unchallenged, unfiled, and unreviewed.

SWANK records this not as an isolated event, but as the first spark in a long trail of procedural retaliation.

IV. Violations

Article 3, ECHR – Protection from degrading treatment
Article 8, ECHR – Right to family and private life
Equality Act 2010 – Disability and race-based discrimination
Police Code of Practice – Failure to investigate a victim’s report in good faith
NHS Duty of Candour – Non-disclosure of incident or follow-up communication
Children Act 1989 (indirectly) – Use of fabricated risk narrative in later proceedings

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t an incident. It was an inversion.
Polly Chromatic walked into A&E struggling to breathe. She left as a fabricated threat — while her actual report was discarded.

This is how false narratives begin.
With one lie, one ignored complaint, and one piece of CCTV footage they refuse to watch.

SWANK will not allow this foundational reversal to be buried.
We will return to it every time the safeguarding myth resurfaces.

⟡ 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.

You Can’t Dismiss Someone’s Disability — And Then Act Like You Never Saw It

⟡ “I Said I Was Ill. He Said ‘Please Stop Forwarding Me These Emails.’” ⟡
A short exchange with Metropolitan Police that proves it doesn’t take a paragraph to document disregard. Sometimes, a one-sentence response is all the negligence you need.

Filed: 15 October 2024
Reference: SWANK/MPS/DIS-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-10-15_SWANK_Email_MetPolice_AminurRashid_DisabilityDismissal_MedicalDisclosure.pdf
Correspondence to the Metropolitan Police and Westminster safeguarding services disclosing active illness, breathing difficulty, and verbal disability. Officer Aminur Rashid replies with procedural disinterest and a command to stop emailing — fully cc’d to safeguarding.

I. What Happened

In mid-October 2024, Polly Chromatic sent an email to Westminster safeguarding and GP Dr Reid disclosing the following:

A fever
Difficulty breathing
Ongoing verbal trauma
A medical complaint against her GP
And a clear disability adjustment request to communicate via email only

This wasn’t an escalation. It was survival.
But the Metropolitan Police responded anyway. And what did they say?

“Please stop forwarding me to these emails.”

That’s it.
No welfare check. No referral. No concern.
Just silence, wrapped in administrative dismissal — and cc’d to safeguarding.

II. What the Email Establishes

That a lawful disability accommodation was requested
That police and safeguarding were notified of acute medical distress
That the reply from MPS was not protective — it was performative rejection
That systemic disregard can be boiled down to one reply
That the state saw a collapsing parent — and logged her as spam

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because there’s no need for speculation when they write it down for you. SWANK archived this to:

Prove that institutional actors received medical disclosures — and replied with dismissal
Demonstrate that verbal disability was documented and denied
Capture police refusal in the body of a single sentence
Establish the tone of systemic negligence before safeguarding escalation

This isn’t a dramatic letter. It’s worse: it’s a casual refusal to acknowledge human need.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Communication adjustment ignored
• Section 27: Retaliatory tone in response to medical disclosure
• Section 149: Public authority’s failure to eliminate discrimination
Human Rights Act 1998 –
• Article 8: Family and private life
• Article 3: Degrading treatment through indifference
Police Code of Ethics –
• Respect for human dignity
• Responsibility to act with care toward vulnerable individuals
NHS Duty of Candour & Coordination – Dr Reid’s inclusion is a medical safeguarding trigger point

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a failure to respond. It was a decision. A decision to view medically vulnerable people as inconveniences. A decision to ignore statutory adjustments. A decision to protect the inbox, not the individual.

SWANK London Ltd. recognises this as an official procedural rejection of medical reality, delivered by the Met in under 12 words.

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
📎 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.

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
📎 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

🕯 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

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
📎 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 2006, Children Act 1989, Human 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.

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
📎 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

A 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.

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
📎 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
📎 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
📎 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.

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

⚖️ Audit Demand of Metropolitan Police Service – Safeguarding Retaliation & Police Complicity

📌 Metadata

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

Closing Declaration

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations

V. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Email Establishes

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. Violations Identified

V. SWANK’s Position

⟡ SWANK Criminal Record Correction Notice ⟡

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

II. What the Complaint Clarifies

III. Why This Filing Was Necessary

IV. SWANK’s Position

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-23-MPS-INVFAIL

🛑 FORMAL COMPLAINT

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

📜 A Complaint Composed in Disgust and Documentation

🕳 Background: The Investigation That Wasn’t

⚖️ Key Failures Committed (Repeatedly, Without Shame)

📚 Legal Frameworks Breached (Spectacularly)

🧾 Remedies Formally Demanded

🖋 Communication Clause

⟡ Oversight Demanded. Misconduct Escalated. IOPC Notified. ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Filing Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

⟡ Criminal Complaint Filed Against the Met ⟡

I. What Happened

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

I. What Happened

II. What the Letter Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

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

II. What the Complaint Establishes

III. Why SWANK Logged It

IV. SWANK’s Position

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

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

II. Two Forces. One Tactic.

III. Why SWANK Filed It

IV. SWANK’s Position