⟡ Addendum: On Misfeasance, Manners, and the Metropolitan Habit of Missing the Point ⟡
Filed: 5 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/METROPOLITAN-POLICE/PC-094
Document: 2025-05-05_Core_PC-094_MetPolice_MisconductDamagesClaimAnnex.pdf
Summary: Annex detailing the Metropolitan Police’s persistent refusal to conduct a lawful, unbiased, or even vaguely intelligent investigation during a medical emergency—transforming a breathless incident into an act of bureaucratic theatre.
I. What Happened
On 5 May 2025, the claimant submitted an annex so devastatingly polite it should have been served on gilt-edged paper. Within it: a £1.1 million damages claim, the bones of institutional misconduct, and the faint scent of exasperation made legal. The document narrates an ordeal in which disability became provocation, evidence became inconvenience, and the night became a stage for police intrusion.
II. What the Annex Establishes
That “reasonable doubt” has been replaced by reasonable indifference.
That CCTV can vanish as efficiently as accountability.
That one may, in the twenty-first century, still require a spreadsheet to quantify disbelief.
The annex converts trauma into arithmetic—a public-law sonnet expressed in daily interest rates.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because outrage, when formatted correctly, becomes jurisprudence.
SWANK regards this filing as the couture of complaint: fault lines embroidered in italics, every paragraph a form of cross-examination delivered with immaculate diction.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Sections 20, 21 & 149: disregard for disability and race equality duties.
Human Rights Act 1998 – Articles 6, 8 & 14: unlawful interference with fairness, privacy, and non-discrimination.
Misfeasance in Public Office – the hobby the Metropolitan Police will never relinquish.
Negligence in Public Duty – performed with choreography but without conscience.
V. SWANK’s Position
The Metropolitan Police appear to treat procedural propriety as optional evening wear.
SWANK, however, remains draped in formality.
This annex stands as the velvet indictment of a constabulary addicted to its own authority—proof that elegance can, indeed, indict.