⟡ THE TFL STATION INCIDENT: A STUDY IN STATE-ADJACENT ATTITUDE DISORDER ⟡
Filed: 29 November 2025
Reference Code: SWANK/TfL/03ANNEX-QUEENSWAY
PDF: 2025-11-29_PC32003_03Annex_Police_CFC_TfL_VerbalHarassment_QueenswayStation.pdf
Summary: A TfL employee attempts hostility-as-policy; fails. Police report filed by Polly Chromatic.
I. WHAT HAPPENED
On 29 November 2025, Polly Chromatic encountered a TfL employee at Queensway Station whose conduct suggested a profound misunderstanding of:
their role,
their remit,
their authority,
and the limits of acceptable professional behaviour.
The staff member launched into an unprovoked verbal attack — not to uphold any rule, but to ventilate their personal irritation in the direction of an unsuspecting passenger.
The employee’s attempt to convert rudeness into regulation was so poorly executed that Polly, unsurprised but unmoved, filed a formal police report documenting the incident.
This was not enforcement.
This was attitude performed as policy.
II. WHAT THE DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES
This Annex entry establishes:
TfL’s frontline employees continue to operate on the principle that mood equals mandate.
The staff member approached Polly Chromatic with hostility, not reason, attempting to assert dominance where no authority existed.
The attack was unprovoked and unrelated to safety, policy, or passenger behaviour.
The burden of accountability, as usual, fell on the mother — not the employee.
Polly had to initiate the police report, because the institution would not have.The incident did not occur in isolation, but within a wider ecosystem of state-adjacent hostility directed at a disabled mother separated from her four medically vulnerable children:
Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.This is part of a recognisable pattern:
when public-sector culture collapses, the first casualty is civility — the second is professionalism.
III. WHY SWANK LOGGED IT
SWANK logs this incident because:
It forms part of the micro-aggression architecture surrounding the institutional retaliation faced by Polly.
It illustrates how easily public-facing employees confuse customer service roles with quasi-policing.
It demonstrates how hostility toward Polly is not isolated to one department, but diffuse across the public-service landscape.
It connects directly to the larger narrative of state escalation, surveillance, and administrative harassment after the removal of Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.
It preserves, for judicial contemplation, a perfect example of state-adjacent misconduct that would otherwise disappear into the daily entropy of London transport.
This is not anecdote.
This is evidence of climate.
IV. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & VIOLATIONS
• TfL Code of Conduct — abandoned in favour of personal agitation.
• Public Sector Equality Duty (EqA 2010 s.149) — ignored despite disability disclosures.
• Article 8 ECHR — Respect for private life — interfered with through unnecessary confrontation.
• Customer Service Obligations — replaced with hostility-as-hobby.
• Safeguarding Environment Duty — rendered laughable in context.
V. SWANK’S POSITION
SWANK states, with judicial calm and unearned generosity:
Aggression performed by a uniformed employee is not authority; it is theatre.
And poorly produced theatre at that.
TfL is hereby reminded that:
hostility is not a transport policy,
verbal aggression is not enforcement,
and passengers — especially disabled mothers enduring institutional retaliation — are not practice targets.
The police report stands as a testament to the dysfunction of frontline public-service culture.
This incident, now preserved as Exhibit TfL–62, forms part of the Mirror-Court Archive documenting the ambient hostility orbiting Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir.
⟡ SWANK London LLC — Where Evidence Acquires Jurisdiction. ⟡
Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch is formally archived under SWANK London Ltd. (United Kingdom) and SWANK London LLC (United States of America). Every paragraph is timestamped. Every clause is jurisdictional. Every structure is sovereign. SWANK operates under dual protection: the evidentiary laws of the United Kingdom and the constitutional speech rights of the United States. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to ongoing legal, civil, and safeguarding matters. All references to professionals are confined strictly to their public functions and concern conduct already raised in litigation or audit. This is not a breach of privacy — it is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act (UK), and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this work stands within the lawful parameters of freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public-interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage — it is breach. Imitation is not flattery when the original is forensic. We do not permit reproduction; we preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument, meticulously constructed for evidentiary use and future litigation. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for the historical record. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing remains the only lawful antidote to erasure. Any attempt to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed under SWANK International Protocols — dual-jurisdiction evidentiary standards registered through SWANK London Ltd. (UK) and SWANK London LLC (USA). © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. (UK) & SWANK London LLC (USA) All typographic, structural, and formatting rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.