“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 complaint recall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complaint recall. Show all posts

Chromatic v Met: On the Digital Withdrawal of Accountability


⟡ The Recalled Reply ⟡
“When the record answers back — delete it.”

Filed: 5 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/WITHDRAWN-RESPONSE-PC05190
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-05_SWANK_MPS_EmailRecall_ComplaintPC05190.pdf
Metropolitan Police attempts to retract prior communication regarding Complaint PC/05190/25 via email recall.

⟡ Chromatic v Met: On the Digital Withdrawal of Accountability ⟡
MPS, complaint recall, withdrawal of response, police conduct, CRU Team 1, transparency evasion, DPS recall attempt

I. What Happened
At 16:08 on 5 June 2025, the Metropolitan Police’s Directorate of Professional Standards (Complaints Resolution Unit, Team 1) issued a formal email recall of a previous message titled: “Complaint against Police (PC/05190/25).”

No explanation. No replacement. No correction. Just a deletion attempt — as if withdrawal were equivalent to redress.

II. What the Recall Establishes

  • ⟡ Digital evasion in place of institutional reply

  • ⟡ Absence of explanation suggests a compromised or erroneous response

  • ⟡ No reissue, no corrective statement, no legal closure

  • ⟡ Reliance on internal IT etiquette over procedural duty

  • ⟡ Presumption that deletion = negation

This wasn’t oversight. It was erasure by recall.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because in the kingdom of accountability, recalled truth is the most illuminating of all. To withdraw a formal email about a police complaint — without public correction — is not procedural. It is performative.

SWANK documents every attempt to un-say what was sent.
Because the record is not what survives in their inbox.
It is what enters ours.

IV. Violations & Implications

  • Breach of IOPC Statutory Guidance – improper complaint handling

  • Public maladministration – withdrawal of formal communications without replacement

  • Article 6, HRA 1998 – Obstruction of redress mechanism

  • Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory silencing where complaint relates to disability-based harm

V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t correction. It was concealment.
This wasn’t review. It was recoil.
SWANK does not accept the recall of complaints as substitute for remedy.
We do not recognise un-sending as un-harming.
You may recall the email — but the archive remembers.

⟡ 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