⟡ SWANK Police Misconduct Archive ⟡

“They Asked Who I Meant. As If It Wasn’t Written.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/DPS/PC01767/2025-04-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-03_SWANK_MetPolice_Response_Request_DiscriminationComplaint_PC01767.pdf

I. They Received a Complaint. Then Forgot How to Read.

On 3 April 2025, SWANK London Ltd. received a reply from the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) regarding our formal complaint of disability discrimination, safeguarding negligence, and procedural harm.

Their reply?

A request for clarification on “who the complaint is about.”

Despite:

A subject line identifying the Met
An incident described in full
An original complaint addressed directly to them

II. What the Email Reveals

That even the simplest discrimination complaints are rerouted into semantic obscurity
That procedural delay is cloaked in polite inquiry
That DPS correspondence routinely reframes misconduct as:
“a misunderstanding between services”
Rather than institutional accountability
That despite having email headers, dates, and diagnoses, the system's first move is to disorient

This isn’t confusion.
It’s strategy — and it’s archived.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because we no longer entertain the dance.
Because clarity is not the issue — institutional refusal is.

We logged this because:

It shows how early-stage derailment works
It previews how complaints are softened into “communication issues”
It marks the first excuse, so it can never be used again without contradiction

Let the record show:

They asked who the complaint was about.
It said "Met Police" in the subject line.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not re-explain what was already made plain.
We publish the question — and let the public answer it.

We do not interpret bad faith as administrative error.
We interpret it as foreseeable, strategic misdirection.

Let the record show:

The complaint was filed.
The facts were laid out.
And the first reply — was a pretend misunderstanding.

This isn’t dialogue.
It’s delay-by-design.
And now, it’s in the archive.

⟡ 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 Formal Denunciation: Westminster’s Artful Dereliction Disguised as Service

Date: 11 March 2025

To:

The Complaints Team
Westminster City Council – Social Services

Subject: Formal Complaint Against Westminster Social Services – A Catalogue of Failures Dressed in Procedure

Dear Complaints Team,

Please consider this a formal complaint, though I confess that such ceremonies increasingly feel less like genuine exercises in accountability and more like ritualistic theatre — a polite fiction masking a reality where neither "care" nor "service" has much foothold.

My concerns pertain to the conduct of Westminster Social Services, whose interventions have ranged from ineffectual to actively harmful, and whose procedural missteps appear less like isolated incidents and more like symptoms of a system in decline. What follows is not a list of grievances, but rather a taxonomy of dysfunction — for posterity, if not for hope of repair.

I. Failure to Provide Even the Pretence of Support

Despite repeated, documented pleas for practical and lawful assistance, I have received little more than automated indifference. The notion that Westminster Social Services acts as a "support" mechanism has, for all practical purposes, collapsed into farce.

II. Procedural Irregularities Disguised as Administrative Style

Timelines have been missed. Protocols have been ignored. Safeguarding obligations have been performed symbolically, if at all. At best, I have been met with bureaucratic shrugs; at worst, ambushes thinly veiled as standard practice.

III. Miscommunication as Standard Operating Procedure

Accurate, timely information has proven elusive — replaced by evasion, obfuscation, and bureaucratic riddles. I have been forced to reconstruct life-altering decisions from fragments, inferences, and misquoted policy excerpts.

IV. Discrimination, Dismissal, and the Intimate Violence of Inaction

I have been subjected to treatment that I can only characterise as discriminatory, based on disability and racial identity. My needs have been minimised, my objections pathologised, and my distress dismissed — not through overt hostility, but through the quiet violence of studied indifference.

V. Coercion in the Guise of Concern

Every step of my interaction has been clouded by pressure masquerading as support. Compliance has been demanded without clarity, consent expected without comprehension — leaving me to navigate an institutional labyrinth with no map and no advocate.

VI. Dereliction of Duty, Artfully Concealed

The cumulative effect is nothing less than a breach of public duty. That such profound harm could be administered under the banner of child protection is not merely galling — it is a devastating indictment of the system itself.

My family has suffered preventable psychological harm, disruption, and erosion of trust — all while social workers nodded approvingly over clipboards.

Requested Actions (Though They Ought to Be Obvious)

Accordingly, I request:

A comprehensive internal review of my case, with a detailed explanation of decisions made — and not made.
A point-by-point written response to each concern raised herein.
A public commitment to procedural improvement, particularly in communication and safeguarding compliance.
The immediate release of all personal records, notes, and internal correspondence related to my case.

Should these steps not be forthcoming, I will escalate the matter to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, where — one dares hope — basic standards of law and logic might still prevail.

Closing Formalities

Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and indicate an expected timeframe for substantive reply. Kindly correspond with me exclusively via email, as my tolerance for telephone-based obfuscation has been entirely exhausted.

🎀 Yours, with all the courtesy your office demands — and none of the credulity it expects,

Polly Chromatic

Founder, SWANK – Standards and Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms
"Because dignified protest is still protest."

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Complaint Received. Clarification Requested. Accountability Postponed.