⟡ “We Filed a Complaint With the Commissioner. They Sent a Link.” ⟡
Metropolitan Police Acknowledge Formal Complaint on Negligence, Retaliation, and Adjustment Failure — But Redirects to Website Without Action
Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/NEGLECT-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_MetPolice_ComplaintCommissioner_ResponseRedirect_ProceduralDeflection.pdf
Summary: The Met Police Commissioner’s Office responds to Polly Chromatic’s formal complaint by forwarding it to Professional Standards and redirecting to a public complaints link, ignoring content and legal notice.
I. What Happened
On 17 February 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a formal complaint to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, cc’ing:
Legal counsel (Blackfords & Merali Beedle)
NHS representative (Philip Reid)
The complaint cited:
Police negligence in safeguarding follow-up
Retaliation following complaints
Repeated refusal to accommodate written-only communication
On 18 February 2025, the Commissioner’s Office replied:
Acknowledged receipt
Stated they have “no direct involvement” in investigations
Forwarded the complaint to Professional Standards
Suggested Polly use the public-facing “Report a Crime” and “Make a Complaint” webpages
No direct response to legal action language or disability rights claims
II. What the Record Establishes
• The Met received a legally framed complaint but offered no institutional response
• The response was automated, generic, and dismissive, regardless of content or cc’d parties
• No action or contact was made by Professional Standards at the time of filing
• This reflects a system-wide minimisation of disability-based retaliation reports
• It supports future claims of procedural neglect, disability discrimination, and legal disregard
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when you email the Commissioner about rights violations, and they respond with a link, the system is saying: “We read it. We won’t act.”
Because redirection is institutional denial with polite language.
Because this was not a report. It was a warning. And they dismissed it anyway.
SWANK logs the moment a Commissioner’s inbox became a firewall.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not accept that formal legal notices are answered with public forms.
We do not accept that disabled complainants are redirected instead of heard.
We do not accept that this constitutes “receipt.”
This wasn’t just inaction. It was institutional gaslighting.
And SWANK recorded it.
⟡ 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.