“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
Showing posts with label SWANK policing archive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SWANK policing archive. Show all posts

We Addressed the Commissioner. The System Sent a Link.


⟡ “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.


No comments:

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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions