⟡ SWANK Police Retaliation Archive ⟡
“I Filed a Report. They Filed Me.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/MET-POLICE/RETALIATION-2025
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_IOPC_Complaint_MetPolice_Retaliation_After_MisconductReports.pdf
I. This Was Not a Safeguarding Concern. It Was Retaliation by Uniform.
This complaint, filed with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and Metropolitan Police Professional Standards, details a familiar tactic:
You report them.
They “report” you.
Following multiple lawful complaints regarding medical endangerment, disability breach, and collusive inaction, the Metropolitan Police responded not with accountability — but with referral theatre and procedural escalation.
This wasn’t about child welfare.
It was about silencing the mother who wouldn’t drop the pen.
II. What the Complaint Documents
A disabled parent lawfully filed reports regarding:
Safeguarding misuse
Police failure to protect during hospital incidents
Disability discrimination and harassment
In response, the police:
Escalated unfounded safeguarding action
Failed to uphold communication adjustments
Enabled or coordinated with social work retaliation
Operated outside threshold, without legal justification, and in full knowledge of the family’s medical record
This wasn’t concern.
It was administrative revenge, dressed in clipboard language.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because police misconduct doesn’t always come with sirens.
Sometimes it arrives in polite emails, escalated “liaison”, and strategic safeguarding chatter.
We filed this because:
The parent was not unsafe.
The children were not in need.
The problem was that she had filed too many complaints — and they noticed.
Let the record show:
There was no new evidence.
There was only new punishment.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept procedural escalation as apology for ignored misconduct.
We do not permit police to function as enforcement arms for agency embarrassment.
We do not confuse state protection with state revenge.
Let the record show:
The mother reported the misconduct.
The police responded by reporting her.
The archive responded by filing this complaint — and making it public.
This wasn’t safeguarding.
It was retaliation with a badge.
⟡ 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.