“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label Police Misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police Misconduct. Show all posts

Chromatic v Westminster: On the Futility of Appeasement Following State-Sanctioned Child Seizure



⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue

Filed date: 21 July 2025

Reference Code: SWANK-FV-WCC0623
PDF Filename: 2025-07-21_SWANK_Declaration_Westminster_NoAppeasement.pdf
1-Line Summary: Westminster cannot repair what they have done — they will be held accountable until justice for the children is achieved.


I. What Happened

Let us be absolutely clear: there is nothing Westminster can do to appease me at this point. The threshold for reconciliation was obliterated the moment they harmed my children.

This is not a dispute.
It is a reckoning.

On 23 June 2025, five police officers — with full support from Westminster Children’s Services — stormed our home and forcibly removed four U.S. citizen children from the only safe, medically monitored, and emotionally attuned environment they had ever known.

They did not pause to consider:
– the children's diagnosed asthma,
– the trauma of being separated from their mother,
– the absence of lawful grounds for such a violent intrusion.

It was not protection.
It was an ambush.

My children experienced the worst possible event imaginable — and Westminster sanctioned it with silence, with arrogance, and with procedural deceit.

There is no excuse for Westminster's lack of maturity.  


II. What the Statement Establishes

This is no longer about appeals, discussions, or good faith cooperation.
This is escalation.

Escalation into every tribunal, every chamber, every court.
Escalation into diplomatic corridors, oversight agencies, international rights bodies, and — if necessary — every page of public history.

Westminster has long misunderstood the scale of their error.
They assumed I was one mother.
They forgot I am also a mechanism.

A procedural intermediary.
A federal rights advocate.
And now, an author of the record they will one day be forced to answer to.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because my children have not been allowed to speak —
So I will.
Because my children have not been allowed to feel —
So I will.

Because the fear that Westminster inflicted on them deserves a public, elegant, and irreversible response.

They created this archive.
I simply filed it.


IV. Violations

  • Article 8 ECHR – Unlawful interference with private and family life

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22 – Failure to consider welfare and voice of child

  • Equality Act 2010 – Ignored disability accommodations and safeguarding history

  • UNCRC Articles 3, 7, 9, 12, 19, 23, 24, 39 – Systematic violation of child rights

  • Common Law Misconduct – Abuse of public authority without accountability

  • Wilful Neglect – Failure to prevent foreseeable harm during seizure

  • Harassment and Retaliation – Ongoing procedural targeting of a protective mother


V. SWANK’s Position

This is not repairable.
No apology will be accepted.
No compromise will be reached.
No soft diplomacy will dilute the trauma my children endured.

It is now time for Westminster to feel what they refused to feel on 23 June —
Fear, consequence, and exposure.

This post is not vengeance.
It is jurisdictional memory.

You cannot take my children and expect silence.
You cannot harm a family and expect stillness.

We escalate.

Because you did.


SWANK London Ltd – Where negligence meets its archivist.

⚖️ 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 Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: A Household Seized Without Law or Logic



⟡ FORCED FAMILY DISMANTLING BY UNIFORM ⟡
No Warrant. No Safeguard. No Shame.


Filed: 26 June 2025
Reference: SWK/POL-REMOVAL/0623-2025
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-26_SWANK_Removal_MetPolice_UnlawfulExtraction.pdf
1-line summary: Police removed children from their home without legal grounds, process, or protection.


I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, five Metropolitan Police officers forced entry into the home of Polly Chromatic — a disabled mother — and extracted her children without any lawful documentation. The removal occurred while the children were peacefully playing and their mother was in her bedroom. No Emergency Protection Order, Police Protection Order, or voluntary consent under Section 20 existed. No safeguarding risk was presented. No trauma-informed worker was present.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • No legal basis for police entry or removal

  • Failure to meet any statutory threshold under Children Act 1989

  • No documentation, no warrant, no prior notice

  • Discriminatory and coercive action targeting a disabled parent

  • Breaches of Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act

  • Violation of international law under the UNCRC


III. Why SWANK Logged It

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was state-sponsored trauma.
When the system finds no fault, it fabricates one.
The silence around this act of seizure is a howl of institutional complicity — and we archived it.


IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Sections 44, 46, and 20 – No valid protective basis

  • PACE 1984 – No warrant or legal entry justification

  • Equality Act 2010 – No disability accommodations

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of due process and family life

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3 & 9 – Separation without judicial review


V. SWANK’s Position

The Metropolitan Police acted not as protectors of the law, but as enforcers of procedural fiction.
Their actions rewrote a family’s reality — but we rewrote it back.
This was an extraction, not an intervention.

We will escalate to:

  • IOPC

  • EHRC

  • PHSO

  • Judicial Review proceedings (if required)

This is not forgotten. This is archived.


⟡ 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 Metropolitan Police: In the Matter of Unlawful Removal, Missing Orders, and Procedural Theatre



⟡ “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:

🎥 Watch the removal video


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.



Polly Chromatic v Metropolitan Police: Disability Rights Violated During State-Enforced Child Removal



⟡ “They Let the Social Workers In. They Ignored My Disability. They Took Four Children While I Was Medically Silenced.” ⟡
This Wasn’t Police Assistance. It Was Police Enforcement of Unlawful State Harm.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/DISABILITY-VIOLATION-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_MetPolice_DisabilityViolation_ChildRemoval.pdf
Formal complaint filed with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) detailing failures by Metropolitan Police to uphold disability law, verify legal authority, or follow trauma-informed safeguarding during the 23 June 2025 child removal.


I. What Happened

On 23 June 2025, Metropolitan Police officers entered the home of Polly Chromatic and assisted Westminster Children’s Services in the forcible removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children. At the time, the parent — medically documented with PTSD, muscle dysphonia, and eosinophilic asthma — had active written-only communication directives and was party to ongoing civil (N1), Judicial Review, and emergency relief proceedings. Police failed to observe any disability accommodations, verify the Emergency Protection Order’s legitimacy, or safeguard the rights of the 16-year-old child, Regal, who was removed without hearing or court review.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Police officers enabled removal without validating the legal basis of the EPO

  • Documented medical accommodations were entirely disregarded

  • No written notice, opportunity to present evidence, or trauma-informed safeguards were offered

  • Officers acted as enforcers of institutional retaliation rather than neutral protectors

  • The presence of an active JR and civil claim was ignored in real-time

This wasn’t just misconduct. It was state-endorsed abuse under blue-light authority.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because trauma-informed policing cannot be bypassed when children are involved.
Because failing to ask for paperwork is not procedural neutrality — it’s complicity.
Because ignoring a disability access directive is not an oversight. It is an act of exclusion.
Because when four Americans are taken under unclear British orders, the police are not bystanders.
They are enablers.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – No reasonable adjustments made for documented disabilities

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 & 8 – Denial of fair process, private life, and family protection

  • College of Policing Code of Ethics – Breach of duty to verify, safeguard, and prevent institutional harm

  • UNCRPD Article 13 – Exclusion of disabled litigant from participation in justice

  • Children Act 1989 – Failure to verify safety, legality, or medical transition planning for children removed


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t community protection. It was jurisdictional malpractice carried out in uniform.
This wasn’t police neutrality. It was state violence facilitated by procedural ignorance.
This wasn’t a failure to act. It was an act of failure — recorded, timestamped, and now archived.

SWANK has formally submitted this complaint not merely as protest — but as litigation preparation.
You cannot remove a mother’s voice and call it safeguarding.
You cannot ignore medical directives and call it lawful.
You cannot assist unlawful removal and expect impunity.


⟡ 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.



Polly Chromatic v Metropolitan Police: Unlawful Removal of Disabled Children Without Legal Grounds



⟡ “You Came Without a Warrant. You Took Four Children. You Ignored the Law Because Someone Told You To.” ⟡
This Was Not Enforcement. This Was Escorting Retaliation.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/METPOLICE/COMPLAINT-REMOVAL-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Complaint_MetPolice_DisabledChildrenUnlawfulRemoval.pdf
Formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police regarding their role in the removal of four disabled U.S. citizen children without lawful authority, medical consideration, or legal procedure.


I. What Happened

On 22 June 2025, officers from the Metropolitan Police accompanied Westminster Children’s Services to forcibly remove four U.S. citizen children from their home — children with known disabilities and medical needs. Their mother, Polly Chromatic, a disabled U.S. citizen with muscle dysphonia, complex PTSD, and eosinophilic asthma, was not served a court order, not given prior notice, and not accommodated as required by law. The police acted as enforcers of a completely undocumented removal — during an active Judicial Review and within 48 hours of a criminal referral naming the very same officials.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Officers attended without a warrant, order, or legal basis

  • Disability accommodations were ignored despite longstanding written notification

  • The removal was executed during live legal action and under diplomatic protection

  • No medical transition plan, documentation, or judicial authority was presented

  • Four disabled children were subjected to trauma with police assistance — while in the care of a parent who had committed no crime

This wasn’t law enforcement. It was a civil kidnapping co-signed by uniform.


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the police are not above the law — they are supposed to uphold it.
Because showing up without a warrant and calling it safeguarding isn’t brave — it’s bureaucratic obedience.
Because trauma isn’t reduced by badges — it’s legitimised by them.
Because the only documentation provided in this removal was archived after the fact — by the mother, not the officers.
Because children are not leverage, and uniforms are not immunity.


IV. Violations

  • Equality Act 2010, Sections 20 & 29 – Disability-based exclusion from protection and process

  • Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – Entry without warrant or lawful cause

  • Children Act 1989 – Removal without lawful authority or safeguarding threshold

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – Denial of fair hearing; interference with family life

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9 – Unlawful separation without lawful review

  • UNCRPD Articles 13 & 14 – Discriminatory and arbitrary interference with disabled parent’s rights


V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t protection. It was state-facilitated trauma, delivered by police van.
This wasn’t legal. It was officer-enabled retaliation against an evidentiary archivist.
This wasn’t an oversight. It was a calculated avoidance of all documentation — because they knew the archive existed.

SWANK hereby logs this event as a breach of dignity, law, and procedural order.
We were not confused. We were excluded.
We were not mistaken. We were silenced.

This post serves as both record and indictment.


⟡ 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.


⟡ 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.

They Called It Welfare. We Call It a Trigger: On the Medical Consequences of Weaponised Attendance



⟡ Advance Notice: Police Contact Is a Medical Risk ⟡
“How many times must we say it before it’s called harassment?”

Filed: 15 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/DISABILITY-02
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-15_SWANK-WCC-Advance-Notice-Police-Medical-Risk.pdf
Formal declaration of clinical hazard, legal jurisdiction, and procedural constraints. All communication must be in writing via SWANK London Ltd. Any deviation will be archived as evidence.


I. Read This Before You Knock

Let us proceed without euphemism: police contact constitutes a medical risk, not a misunderstanding.

On 14 June 2025, a man arrived at the private residence of the Director of SWANK London Ltd. He carried a grey plastic-wrapped parcel, knocked repeatedly, called “hello,” and then:

• Photographed the front door
• Opened the private mail chute
• Peered into the home — uninvited, unidentified, and undocumented

No delivery occurred.
No identity was provided.
No apology was issued.
No justification was offered.
No authority was lawfully in play.

This was not logistics.
It was a pantomime of legitimacy, choreographed to resemble procedure, but executed like coercion.

All of it occurred in direct defiance of documented medical notice that such contact induces:

• Acute respiratory reaction
• Psychiatric destabilisation
• Functional verbal shutdown

These are not personal preferences.
They are diagnosed conditions, medically certified and legally protected.
To disregard them is not ignorance. It is institutional malice under administrative costume.


II. Procedural Mandates for Contact

Effective immediately and without exception:

• All communication must be directed in writing to SWANK London Ltd.
✉️ Email: director@swanklondon.com

• No verbal contact. No physical approach. No audio at the threshold.
This includes “hellos,” knocking, or hovering in architectural proximity.

• Attendance by police, state agents, or affiliates shall not occur unless:
◦ Accompanied by a judicial warrant
◦ Justified by a legally admissible safeguarding threshold
◦ Or preceded by formal written consent from the Director — which shall not be presumed, inferred, or theatrically improvised

• The Director of SWANK London Ltd. is medically exempt from verbal engagement.
Silence is not ambiguity.
Silence is not agreement.
Silence is jurisdictional protection, not an opportunity for interpretation.

• Any attempt to circumvent these terms — through photography, body cameras, postal disguise, or visual intrusion via chute or frame — will be immediately archived as escalation.


III. Violations

The above event constitutes material breaches of the following statutory provisions:

• Equality Act 2010, s.20 – Failure to accommodate a legally documented disability
• Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Infringement of private and family life via unauthorised contact
• UK GDPR – Attempted acquisition of interior visual data without consent or notice
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Sustained pattern of conduct following formal withdrawal of consent
• Safeguarding Statutory Guidance – Improper contact misrepresented as concern
• Basic Principles of Clinical Safety – Induced health risk in defiance of declared exemption


IV. SWANK’s Position

This was not an oversight.
It was not miscommunication.
It was state theatre, performed in costume, against instruction, on a medically vulnerable household — for no lawful purpose.

We no longer interpret props as procedural validity.
We no longer accept choreography as care.
We no longer indulge the bureaucratic fantasy that procedural trespass becomes lawful if it arrives in a plastic sleeve.

This was not safeguarding.
It was staged incursion.
And it is now formally entered into the archive as evidence of systemic retaliation against medical constraint.

You were warned.
Now you are recorded.


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.


A Safeguarding Excuse. A Learning Day Destroyed.



⟡ SWANK Archive Record ⟡

“The Visit Was the Violation”
Filed: 3 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/2025-06-03
📎 Download PDF: 2025-06-03_SWANK_Complaint_DisabilityBreach_MetPolice_HomeVisit.pdf


I. Scene: Disability Adjustment, Ignored

On the morning of 3 June 2025, two officers from the Metropolitan Police attended the private residence of our Director — a disabled mother recovering from institutional trauma — without invitation, urgency, or lawful cause.

They disregarded:

  • clearly posted front-door adjustment sign:

    Disability Adjustment: Written Communication Only – Do Not Knock.

  • A formal communication adjustment already on police file

  • Three diagnosed conditions: Eosinophilic Asthmamuscle tension dysphonia, and PTSD

The consequences were swift and violent:
❐ Physiological collapse
❐ PTSD resurgence
❐ Educational interruption for legally homeschooled children

There was no emergency. There was no safeguarding trigger.
There was only power — misused.


II. Legal Protections Breached, With Contempt

The conduct in question constitutes violations under:

  • Equality Act 2010
    Section 20: Reasonable Adjustments Ignored
    Section 21: Disability-Linked Discrimination

  • Human Rights Act 1998
    Article 8: Respect for Private and Family Life

The attending officers’ failure to heed well-documented, visible medical instructions is not a procedural lapse.
It is a strategic humiliation masquerading as state presence.


III. Remedies Formally Demanded

This complaint — now officially lodged with both the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department and the IOPC — demands the following:

  1. A written apology acknowledging legal breach

  2. Cessation of all in-person police visits without prior written consent

  3. Immediate review of internal systems for disability adjustment flagging

  4. Referral to IOPC for full misconduct investigation

This incident has been formally appended to a live civil N1 claim concerning state retaliation and disability discrimination.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not negotiate the right to be left alone.

To ignore a written-only medical adjustment is not just disrespectful. It is a state-authored health hazard.

This is not a misunderstanding.
It is the bureaucratic fantasy that “safeguarding” gives one license to disregard health, home, and humanity.

Noted. Logged. Filed in velvet.



⟡ 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.

They Knocked. We Filed.



⟡ SWANK Submission Record ⟡

Formal Complaint: Disability Breach by Metropolitan Police
Filed: 3 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-06-03

📄 Download Full PDF – 2025-06-03_SWANK_IOPC_DisabilityBreach_HomeVisit.pdf


I. What Happened

On 3 June 2025, two police officers from the Metropolitan Police attended my residence — London W2 — in direct breach of:

  • documented medical communication adjustment requiring written contact only

  • visible front-door sign requesting no verbal or in-person engagement

  • Diagnosed disabilities, including Eosinophilic Asthmamuscle tension dysphonia, and PTSD, all of which were known to relevant authorities

This visit occurred without invitationwithout urgency, and without justification. The result was acute psychological distress, medical destabilisation, and re-traumatisation. Their actions disregarded multiple legal protections.


II. Grounds for Complaint

The complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) details four core violations:

  • 🚫 Breach of the Equality Act 2010

  • 📜 Violation of Article 8 – Human Rights Act 1998

  • ⚖️ Failure to uphold lawful and visible disability adjustments

  • 🧠 Institutional retraumatisation through coercive conduct

This is not a misunderstanding. It is policy contempt dressed as protocol.


III. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept “oops” as a legal defence when the State knocks — uninvited — on the door of a disabled mother, already recovering from institutional harassment.

This complaint has been filed with both the IOPC and the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Department, and forms part of a broader archive of retaliatory misconduct against medically vulnerable individuals who assert their rights.



⟡ 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.

Anatomy of Institutional Malice: A Forensic Record of Procedural Retaliation

 

🦯 Retaliation & Procedural Escalation Timeline

A Stylised Chronology of Disability Discrimination, Retaliatory Safeguarding, and State-Endorsed Harassment

By: Polly Chromatic


This is not a record of mere bureaucratic malfunction. It is a silk-gloved indictment. A forensic reconstruction of how public authorities — emboldened by their own impunity — sought to punish a disabled woman for insisting on written standards.

Westminster Children’s Services. RBKC. The NHS.
Each implicated. Each archived.

Every entry below is backed by police reports, clinical documentation, legal submissions, and the imperturbable clarity of written truth.

What follows is a timeline — not of time, but of intent.


🕰 June – October 2023 — Toxic Foundations

  • Sewer gas poisoning in the Claimant’s flat, documented yet dismissed. Environmental Health (RBKC) ignored repeated warnings. Not a single urgent inspection until February 2024 — eight months too late.

  • October 2023: Forced hotel relocation — mother and four children — at their own expense. Landlord refused repairs, sold the flat from under them.

  • While in hotel: Personal belongings stolen. Not one authority intervened.


🕰 November 2023 — Medical Distress, Misread

  • First emergency visit to St Thomas’ Hospital: respiratory collapse. No toxicology. No urgency. A clinical shrug.


🕰 December 2023 — The Cat Dies First

  • The family cat dies in the poisoned flat. Still, no environmental response from RBKC. The death was logged — as were their silences.


🕰 January 2024 — Second Hospital Visit

  • Second A&E admission: identical symptoms, identical neglect. Instead of investigating toxins, the NHS escalates to social services.


🕰 Nov 2023 – Feb 2025 — A&E Asylum

  • Multiple emergency visits for the Claimant and her children — all stemming from sewer gas exposure and infections made worse by the trauma of social work intrusion. Not a home. Not a system. A trigger loop in policy drag.


🕰 February 2024 — The Fabrication Begins

  • Physical assault attempt at Virgin Active Gym (Notting Hill): A Black male customer attempted to punch the Claimant in the face. Rather than protect the victim, Virgin Active banned the Claimant. A police report was filed. No action was taken.

  • Safeguarding referrals from St Thomas’ and Chelsea & Westminster Hospitals: red eyes interpreted as "possible intoxication."

  • No tests. No consent.

  • Environmental data provided. Ignored. The result: escalation by fiction.

  • RBKC Child Protection Plan imposed because the Claimant could not speak.

  • Eosinophilic asthma, PTSD, and muscle tension dysphonia — all documented, all dismissed.


🕰 October 2024 — Paper Downgrade, Not Relief

  • Downgraded to Child in Need, not because the harm ended, but because the panic attacks began. The abuse of process merely changed outfits.


🗓 15 February 2025 — First Police Strike

  • Report BCA-10622-25-0101-IR filed against Kirsty Hornal:
    ✓ Coercion
    ✓ Discrimination
    ✓ Adjustment refusal


🗓 7 March 2025 — The Claim Hits Court

  • N1 Civil Claim filed. The accusations:
    ✓ Harassment
    ✓ Disability Discrimination
    ✓ Weaponised safeguarding


🗓 14 April 2025 — Retaliation Rehearsed

  • Westminster issues PLO letter. No new evidence. No new assessment. Pure retaliation — days after legal filings.


🗓 15 April 2025 — Police Again

  • Report BCA-25130-25-0101-IR filed:
    ✓ Escalation
    ✓ Harassment
    ✓ Breach of adjustments


🗓 16 April 2025 — Repeat Offender: Hornal

  • Report BCA-25249-25-0101-IR:
    ✓ Coercive control
    ✓ Data misuse
    ✓ Health endangerment


🗓 18 April 2025 — Flag Raised

  • Formal notification to safeguarding and legal bodies. Pattern cited. Silence returned.


🗓 21 April 2025 — The Medical Response

  • Asthma clarified. Written-only needs reaffirmed. Misrepresentation denounced.


🗓 22 April 2025 — Legal Line Drawn

  • Written-only demand formalised. Equality Act cited.


🗓 24 April 2025 — Evidence Supplied (Again)

  • PLO agenda. Medicals. Legal. Delivered.


🗓 17 May 2025 — Dual Filing Day

  • N16A Injunction

  • N461 Judicial Review

  • The fight, formalised.


🗓 21 May 2025 — Encrypted Retaliation

  • Police Report ROC-10237-25-0101-IR:
    ✓ Sam Brown
    ✓ Unlawful contact
    ✓ Adjustment breach


🗓 22 May 2025 — Final Refusal

  • Final written response. CIN visit declined. Accompanied by:
    ✓ Police reports
    ✓ Psychiatric reports
    ✓ Legal claims

  • All future contact (non-written) to be treated as unlawful harassment.


🗓 29 May 2025 — The Letter of Intent

  • Kirsty Hornal’s final act of theatre:

    • 11:14am — Email threat

    • 11:41am — Follow-up urging legal advice

  • Documents included:
    ✓ Solicitor list
    ✓ Duplicate PLO
    ✓ So-called "Letter of Intent"

“Please do take the letter of intent to a solicitor for advice.”
A line more befitting a bailiff than a children's service.


📟 Conclusion

This is not a “safeguarding concern.” It is a documented campaign of retaliatory escalation, carried out beneath the pastel pretence of procedure.

No risk. No injury. No protection.
Only a refusal — to let a disabled mother live, speak, and raise her children without interference.


⟡ 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:

  1. comprehensive independent review of the case and its evidentiary suppression

  2. An explanation — preferably in writing, not muttered through procedural fog — as to why key materials were ignored

  3. Internal accountability for officers involved in negligent conduct

  4. Written confirmation that new procedural safeguards will be instated

  5. 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

This Isn’t Care. It’s Control. A Criminal Complaint from the Mirror Court.



🕯 SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-Crim-Misc

Filed Under: Velvet Retaliation, Safeguarding Farce, Procedural Sadism


📣 PUBLIC NOTICE

For Immediate Archival & Consequence
29 May 2025


🛡 A Criminal Complaint from the Velvet Front

Safeguarding Rewritten as Retaliation. Care Recast as Control.


LONDON, UK — A disabled mother and her four asthmatic children have issued a formal criminal complaint alleging misconduct by multiple public agencies:

  • Westminster Children’s Services

  • NHS Trusts

  • The Metropolitan Police

What’s been called “protection” was, in practice, a choreographed regime of cruelty — featuring falsified referrals, unlawful interrogations of children, and a pointed refusal to accommodate diagnosed medical conditions.


🩺 The Complainant

Polly Chromatic

Diagnosed with:
• Eosinophilic asthma
• Muscle tension dysphonia
• PTSD (acquired courtesy of institutional theatre)

Her four children also carry asthma diagnoses. Instead of care, they were offered intrusion. Instead of protection, escalation. Instead of support, a silent siege.

“This isn’t child protection. It’s punishment by process,”
— Polly Chromatic


⚠️ Highlights from the Complaint:

• Fabricated safeguarding referrals filed after medical discrimination
• Children questioned unlawfully, without representation
• Disability adjustments ignored — written-only contact denied
• PLO and CP escalation used punitively
• Police refused to obtain CCTV that would have exonerated the family


⚖️ Cited Breaches Include:

• Equality Act 2010
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Children Act 1989
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The complaint — elegantly titled
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation” —
has been submitted to:
• Metropolitan Police – Directorate of Professional Standards
• Social Work England
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)


🧾 Additional Proceedings

The family has also filed:
• A civil claim (N1) for damages exceeding £23 million
• A judicial review (N461) challenging unlawful safeguarding escalation


🖋 Access Protocol

Ms Simlett is medically exempt from verbal communication.
All inquiries must be submitted in writing only.

📜 Written Communication Statement:
www.swanklondon.com/p/written-communication-statement.html


📮 Contact

✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com

Secure access to the legal bundle available on request.



Met Police Violate Disability Rights in Retraumatising Home Visit – 3 June 2025



✉️ Dispatch No. 2025-06-03-MET-DISABILITY-BREACH

Filed Under: Police Disregard, Disability Misconduct, Doorstep Theatre

To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
📧 enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk

Subject:
Formal Complaint – Metropolitan Police Violation of Disability Adjustments (3 June 2025)

Date: 3 June 2025


Dear IOPC Complaints Team,

Consider this a formal submission to the archive of modern British institutional failure. I refer to the unjustifiable attendance of Metropolitan Police officers at my private residence on the morning of 3 June 2025—an incident so flagrant in its disregard for disability law that one wonders whether training has been entirely replaced by improvisational theatre.

The facts, which I presume will not be contested:

  • clearly visible sign affixed to my door specifying no contact except in writing

  • documented and longstanding communication adjustment, known to multiple agencies

  • Diagnosed conditions including:

    • Eosinophilic Asthma

    • Muscle tension dysphonia

    • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — the latter acquired not through random misfortune, but through sustained institutional harassment

Despite these safeguards, officers arrived uninvitedunannounced, and wholly uninformed. This intrusion followed closely on the heels of a threatening email from a local safeguarding officer — an email which had already triggered a psychological spiral requiring days of recovery. The police arrival escalated the harm into the physical realm: my hands went numb, my breathing constricted, and I was once again re-traumatised by the very systems meant to offer protection.


⚖️ Legal Grounds for IOPC Scrutiny

I am formally requesting the IOPC to log and investigate this incident on the following legal foundations:

  • Breach of the Equality Act 2010 – failure to honour a pre-established disability adjustment

  • Violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – unwarranted intrusion into private life

  • Institutional negligence in the handling of known clinical vulnerabilities

  • Re-traumatisation through coercive and unauthorised contact

For the avoidance of doubt: this was not a welfare check. It was a procedural violation, cloaked in bureaucratic indifference, carried out by uniformed agents of state harm.

The original letter to the Metropolitan Police’s Professional Standards Department is enclosed for your reference. Kindly confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a formal case reference. One must presume that even in the realm of police oversight, paperwork still counts for something.

Yours, with documented dismay,

Polly Chromatic



When the Police Knock Anyway: A Disabled Mother's Adjustment Ignored by the Metropolitan Force



🎩 DISPATCH No. 2025-06-03–MPS–ADJUSTMENT-BREACH

Filed Under: Disability Defiance · Procedural Misfire · Doorstep Drama


📍 To:

Professional Standards Department
Metropolitan Police Service
✉ complaints@met.police.uk
Optional CC: contact@policeconduct.gov.uk (IOPC)


📌 Subject:

🛑 Formal Complaint – Discriminatory Home Visit in Breach of Disability Adjustments


🗓 Date: 3 June 2025


🖋 Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in velvet-clad fury to report a matter of no small concern: the unlawful and traumatising attendance of Metropolitan Police officers at my home on 3 June 2025, in direct response to a safeguarding report I myself had filed — concerning Ms. Kirsty Hornal of Westminster City Council.

Instead of safeguarding my family, your officers joined the breach.


⚠ 1. Breach of Disability Adjustment

I live with multiple disabling conditions, including:

  • Eosinophilic Asthma

  • Muscle Tension Dysphonia

  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, induced by prolonged institutional harm

As a direct result, I require — and have repeatedly documented — a written-only communication adjustment.

This requirement was:

✔ Included in my safeguarding report
✔ Publicly displayed on my front door, which reads:

Disability Adjustment: Written Communication Only – Do Not Knock

Yet officers arrived without notice, triggering:

  • Numbness in my hands

  • Tightness in my chest

  • A full PTSD episode

  • Disruption of my children’s lawful, thriving home education

What should have been protection became re-traumatisation at the hands of the state.


⚖ 2. Violation of Legal Protections

Your conduct constitutes a breach of:

🧾 Equality Act 2010

  • Section 20 – Failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • Section 21 – Discrimination arising from disability

📜 Human Rights Act 1998

  • Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

The visit did not just fail to protect my rights — it compounded the trauma which gave rise to my original report.


✨ 3. Remedies Requested

I request, without performance but with precision:

  1. written apology acknowledging the breach

  2. A guarantee that no further in-person police visits will occur without written consent

  3. Review and reform of internal systems to ensure disability adjustments are attached to reports and respected

  4. Formal referral of this complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

For avoidance of doubt, this incident will be included as evidence in active County Court proceedings under an N1 claim for disability discrimination and safeguarding retaliation.

Please confirm receipt and provide a case reference.


Respectfully, yet not passively,
Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy



Disability Rights Denied in a Whisperless System



🖋 SWANK Dispatch | 3 December 2024
“Advocacy Required, Adjustments Refused”

Filed Under: Disability Assessment · Adjustment Failure · Advocacy Demand · Voice-Based Exclusion · Sovereign Communication · SWANK London Ltd

Dear RBKC Customer Services (and Everyone Else Ignoring the Law),

I wrote:

“I need an assessment for advocacy services for my disabilities…”

And what I received in return was silence — that bureaucratic shrug in email form.

Apparently, in your systems:

  • PTSD is a character flaw

  • Severe eosinophilic asthma is an inconvenience

  • Muscle dysphonia is just “non-cooperation”

And verbal pain?
You treat it as defiance.

Not a single adjustment.
Not from the police. Not from the borough.
Not even from the departments charged with upholding rights.

What do we call a structure that insists on voice when voice is the wound?

Ableist.

I do not request compliance.
I require it.

You are now formally notified:
All further communication must be made to an appointed advocate —
or it will be redirected to the SWANK Archive for publication and legal indexing.

📍 Assessment Denied. Archive Begun.
Polly Chromatic
Disability Formalist & Advocate-in-Chief
✉ director@swanklondon.com
🌐 www.swanklondon.com
© SWANK London Ltd. All Adjustments Owed.



Polly Couldn’t Breathe, So the State Investigated Her Children



⟡ SWANK Emergency Report Log ⟡

When Asthma Was Weaponised and Procedure Was Performance
19–20 October 2021

An Ambulance Denied, A Police Report Withheld


I. Medical Crisis, Bureaucratic Confusion

On 14 October 2021Polly Chromatic suffered a life-threatening asthma attack in her home in Grand Turk.

911 did not respond.
An ambulance was not dispatched.

It was her mother and neighbour, Deborah Viera, who contacted Providenciales Police in desperation. Only then was an ambulance secured.

As Polly was taken to hospital in respiratory distress, the police entered her home—without warrant, cause, or medical training.
They inspected her kitchen.
They called social workers.

The stated reason?

“She left her children alone.”
Her eldest was 12 years old.


II. Legal Request Denied. Procedure Improvised.

Polly attempted, repeatedly, to obtain the police report. The response?

  • She was given the wrong email addresstwice.

  • She was told she could not access the report because she “didn’t make the report.”

  • She was told to return in person—while still recovering from hospitalisation.

At the station, an unnamed officer (believed to be Mr. Porter):

  • Refused to give the report

  • Claimed it was illegal for a 12-year-old to supervise siblings “for any time”

  • Cited no lawno policyno authority

  • Interrupted her repeatedly

  • Asked her to leave when she persisted in seeking legal clarity

“No one seems to be able to point out any laws to back up their actions.”


III. From Health Emergency to Character Assassination

The entire institutional response was not medical—it was performative safeguarding theatre.

  • The home was searched not for safety—but for character evidence.

  • The appearance of the mother was scrutinised.

  • Social workers were contacted without lawful trigger.

  • The vulnerable adult in crisis was treated as a suspect, not a patient.

What began as an emergency became an excuse for bureaucratic harassment.


IV. The Neighbours Turn Unstable

The very neighbour who helped coordinate emergency services, Deborah Viera, turned inexplicably hostile. Her daughter called in a rage.

Polly and her family were accused of “harassment”—for requesting the report that Viera had helped initiate.

“No one intended on making a police report. Everyone just wanted to get an ambulance to me.”

In truth, no one wanted accountability.
Not the police. Not the neighbours. Not the bureaucrats playing protector.




© SWANK London Ltd. All Patterns Reserved.
This was not “protection.” This was the policing of survival.

Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
www.swanklondon.com
✉ director@swanklondon.com
⚠ Written Communication Only – View Policy



A Formal Statement from the Family of Chromatic

👑 SWANK PRESS DISPATCH
Institutional Retaliation Is Not Care—It’s Criminal

📆 29 May 2025
🏷️ Labels: Press ReleaseCriminal ReferralNHS HarassmentPolice MisconductSocial Worker AbuseDisability DiscriminationLegal ComplaintCivil ClaimJudicial ReviewCoercive SafeguardingPLO RetaliationEnergetic WarfareField AbuseSystemic Retaliation


“Institutional Retaliation Is Not Care—It’s Criminal”

A Formal Statement from the Family of Chromatic

🪞 Filed Under: Legal Escalation, Disability Rights, Criminal Misconduct, Retaliation by Safeguarding, NHS Harassment, Police Negligence


💼 Formal Complaint Alleges Coordinated Criminal Misconduct

A British Resident mother and her four disabled children have filed a formal, multi-agency complaint exposing a coordinated pattern of institutional misconduct that defies any reasonable claim of “care.”

Ms Chromatic—diagnosed with muscle tension dysphoniaeosinophilic asthma, and PTSD—reports a sustained campaign of:

  • ❌ False safeguarding referrals triggered immediately after hospital discrimination

  • ❌ Unlawful child interviews without notice, support, or legal authority

  • ❌ Forced verbal communication despite medical orders for written-only contact

  • ❌ Escalated PLO retaliation masquerading as concern

  • ❌ Police refusal to retrieve CCTV evidence which would have cleared the family entirely

💬 “This isn’t child protection,” she writes. “It’s punishment by process.”


📜 Legal Foundations & Claims

The formal complaint, entitled:
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation”
details breaches of:

  • The Equality Act 2010

  • The Human Rights Act 1998

  • The Fraud Act 2006

  • The Children Act 1989

  • The Protection from Harassment Act 1997

🧾 Active proceedings include:

  • An N1 Civil Claim

  • An N461 Judicial Review Application
    —together totalling over £23 million in damages sought.


🛑 No Verbal Contact — Written Only

In accordance with her medical access needsMs Chromatic cannot communicate by phone.

📜 View her Written Communication Statement:
swankarchive.com/p/written-communication-statement.html

📩 Email for press or document access:
complaints@swankarchive.com

🌐 Full Legal Bundle and Public Archive:
www.swankarchive.com


This is not a misunderstanding.
It’s a structural malfunction.
And SWANK is watching.


Polly Chromatic
Curator-in-Chief, SWANK Archive
Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms

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.


Asthma, Intellect, and the Fantasy of Abandonment



⟡ I Was Dying. They Searched My House. ⟡

Filed: 18 October 2021
Reference: SWANK/TCI/2021-POLICE-SOCIALDEV-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2021-10-18_SWANK_TCI_SocialDevPoliceMisconduct_EmergencyRetaliation_Godet_Taylor.pdf


I. A Breathing Emergency. A Forced Investigation. A State That Couldn’t Wait.

This document records a singular horror: a respiratory medical collapse, followed not by care or pause — but by a raid.

What the timeline shows:

  • An emergency ambulance was called

  • The parent was unconscious and removed to hospital

  • While she was gone, police and social workers entered the home

  • Children were questioned, separated, and threatened

  • One child — with an intellectual disability — was asked who would take care of them now

No warrant.
No safeguarding trigger.
Just institutional presumption masquerading as procedure.

This wasn’t welfare.
This was retaliation — activated by vulnerability.


II. The Scene They Created

Present:

  • Social worker Vernita Godet

  • Officer Kayon Taylor

  • Multiple uniformed police

  • Children — one still recovering from trauma, one neurodivergent, all terrified

The mother had just been hospitalised for Eosinophilic Asthma — an emergency for which she was medically shielded and previously endangered.

She returned to:

  • Her children visibly shaken

  • Her home violated

  • Her authority as a parent treated as null


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because this was not an oversight.
It was a state-led dramaturgy of suspicion — staged while the mother was unconscious.

Because when social workers exploit medical trauma as a moment to assert jurisdiction, they do not protect children — they perform authority.

Because when you’re ill, and alone, and disabled —
they assume you are unfit.
And when you recover, they expect silence.

But SWANK files instead.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not consider forced entry during a medical crisis to be lawful contact.
We do not accept the use of children’s confusion as investigatory leverage.
We do not mistake a uniform for legitimacy.

Let the record show:

  • The mother was hospitalised

  • The children were traumatised

  • The state interpreted illness as abandonment

  • And SWANK — interpreted that as breach

This is not drama.
This is procedure deployed as punishment.







£1.1 Million for Every Minute They Ignored the Law



⟡ The Night They Sent Police Instead of Help ⟡

Filed: 1 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/2025-DISABILITY-BREACH
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-01_SWANK_IOPC_Evidence_MetPolice_DisabilityViolation_SafeguardingRetaliation_£1.1MClaim.pdf


I. £1.1 Million for Every Minute They Ignored the Law

This evidence was submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following a safeguarding-triggered home visit by the Metropolitan Police Service, which breached:

  • A lawful written-only communication adjustment

  • A documented medical crisis (respiratory collapse)

  • Established trauma diagnoses

  • All disability accommodation duties under the Equality Act 2010

They didn’t come to assist.
They came to discipline.

Not with force — but with presence, silence, and procedural shock.


II. They Read the Adjustment. Then Came Anyway.

The evidence outlines:

  • Forced attendance without emergency justification

  • No advance notification

  • Refusal to correspond in writing

  • Escalation after lawful safeguarding complaints had been filed against the council

  • Presence during acute asthma collapse

This wasn’t policing.
It was punishment in uniform — for the crime of requesting protection.


III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because disability adjustments are not optional.
Because when a system retaliates, the police shouldn’t deliver it.
Because the presence of law enforcement during medical trauma is not neutral — it is an act of gaslit provocation.

Let the record show:

  • The harm was witnessed

  • The policy was breached

  • The silence was strategic

  • And SWANK — filed it with legal clarity and fiscal notation

This wasn’t failure.
It was a structural message: don’t ask for help again.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not permit the language of law enforcement to obscure its role in silencing the disabled.
We do not confuse safety with obedience.
We do not allow trauma to go uncosted.

Let the record show:

The adjustment was in place.
The officers were aware.
The presence was unlawful.
And SWANK — filed for £1.1 million.

This isn’t a complaint.
It’s a financial ledger of state-licensed endangerment.





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.