⟡ “No Order, No Justification, Just Screams” ⟡
A filmed removal. Five officers. Zero paperwork. A legal vacuum with blue epaulettes.
Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOL/SF-REMOVAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Removal_MetPolice_UnlawfulExtraction.pdf
Video evidence and incident account of a child removal conducted without lawful authority, warrant, or safeguarding rationale.
I. What Happened
On 23 June 2025 at 1:30pm, five uniformed officers from the Metropolitan Police entered the family residence at London W2 6JL. They proceeded to remove all 4 children from their mother, Polly Chromatic (Director, SWANK London Ltd.), without presenting a court order, warrant, emergency protection order, or any written documentation whatsoever. The children were visibly distressed, begging not to be separated from their lawful parent.
The removal was filmed in full and is now publicly available via SWANK’s evidentiary archive:
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Procedural Breach: No lawful authority presented — no warrant, no emergency order, no Section 20 consent, and no legal threshold met for removal.
Human Impact: Four broken-hearted children forcibly removed from their home, weeping and terrified, with no trauma-informed mitigation.
Power Dynamics: Five armed agents of the state versus one disabled mother and her children, with no safeguarding professional present.
Institutional Failure: A policing body acting extrajudicially, bypassing court authority, with no documentation or clinical oversight.
What’s Not Acceptable: When the law is absent and uniforms are present, we are not in a democracy. We are in performance.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because child removal without legal basis is not rare — it is routine, and routinised. Because silence would imply consent, and SWANK does not consent to state overreach disguised as "concern."
Because the image of four children being dragged from their mother without paperwork should haunt every bureaucrat who signs off such conduct.
Because mothers are not meant to narrate their child’s abduction in legal prose. But if we must, it will be with velvet gloves and juridical knives.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Section 44 (no EPO); Section 46 (no police protection threshold met); Section 20 (no consent)
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Right to private and family life), Article 6 (Right to fair process)
Equality Act 2010 – Failure to consider disability accommodations; discriminatory enforcement
PACE 1984 – Entry without warrant; no lawful justification under Part II
UNCRC – Article 9 (Separation without judicial scrutiny); Article 3 (Best interests not paramount)
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not safeguarding. It was seizure.
This was not lawful enforcement. It was theatre in uniform.
We do not accept removals with no legal basis.
We do not accept unfiled trauma.
We do not accept five officers and zero signatures.
This incident is now formally archived.
It will be cited. It will be pursued.
And it will never be forgotten.
⟡ 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.