“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 Multi-Agency Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multi-Agency Abuse. Show all posts

They Retaliated for Asking for Access. — A Case Built for Public Record, Now Delivered to the Press



⟡ Media Briefing Filed: Multi-Agency Abuse, Medical Harm, Legal Proof ⟡

“I am a disabled mother who has been repeatedly targeted for retaliation after requesting lawful disability adjustments and submitting formal legal complaints.”

Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MEDIA/BRIEFING-01
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_MediaBriefing_MultiAgencyAbuse_DisabledFamilyEvidence.pdf
A formal media briefing sent to investigative journalist Maeve McClenaghan. Encloses legal and medical evidence of multi-agency retaliation, fabricated safeguarding, and the weaponisation of care systems against a disabled family.


I. What Happened

On 2 June 2025, Polly Chromatic, Director of SWANK London Ltd., issued a formal press briefing to journalist Maeve McClenaghan at The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The briefing includes:

  • A synopsis of multi-agency harm involving social workers, police, and NHS Trusts

  • Summary of civil, regulatory, and criminal filings already on record

  • Disclosure of written-only medical adjustments repeatedly violated

  • Evidence of safeguarding abuse, negligence, and institutional collusion

  • Direct reference to Equality Act breaches and formal regulatory escalation

This is not an informal tip-off.
It is a procedural act of public witness.


II. What the Briefing Establishes

  • That a public-interest reporter has been formally notified

  • That the case involves disabled children, regulatory evasion, and state-based retaliation

  • That enclosed materials meet the threshold for investigation, not summary dismissal

  • That silence in response will also become part of the record


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when legal complaints vanish into mailboxes,
And medical accommodations are treated as invitations for harm,
And safeguarding is weaponised by those meant to protect —

The press must be notified.
Not because we hope — but because we file.
If power won’t acknowledge the truth,
SWANK sends it to someone who will.

And if no one listens,
We publish the silence with the same level of proof.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that media interest must be begged.
We do not accept that evidence must scream to be seen.
We do not accept institutional collusion as untouchable.

SWANK London Ltd. affirms:
If the regulators fail,
We brief the press.
If the press ignores,
We archive the notice.
And if no one acts —
We remain the 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 permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

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
๐Ÿ“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

Documented Obsessions