⟡ I Told the Police I Would Not Be Quiet. And Then I Hit Publish. ⟡
“They sent me a template. I sent them a PDF.”
Filed: 21 November 2024
Reference: SWANK/MPS/EMAILS-12
📎 Download PDF – 2024-11-21_SWANK_EmailResponse_MetPolice_HospitalRetaliation_PublicPostingDeclaration.pdf
Parent’s direct reply to Metropolitan Police following hospital safeguarding retaliation. Document affirms refusal to engage with internal complaints processes and confirms public interest publication strategy.
I. What Happened
On 21 November 2024, following multiple incidents of NHS mistreatment and a retaliatory safeguarding report filed against her, the parent forwarded a message to the Metropolitan Police.
The email included:
A previous complaint about hospital bullying and safeguarding abuse
The police’s dismissive response, instructing her to raise concerns with the NHS directly
A firm declaration that she no longer trusts institutional pathways
A clear statement that she will be publicly archiving, posting, and reporting all misconduct for legal, social, and protective purposes
She stated plainly:
“I do not wish to raise a concern about a police officer. I wish to log a history of abuse so I can protect myself from retaliation.”
II. What the Complaint Establishes
That the police refused to act on NHS bullying reports related to disability and safeguarding retaliation
That the parent was not attempting to file a complaint — she was protecting herself in writing
That the public posting of documents is not a threat — it is a reasonable safeguard
That the parent had already attempted multiple internal avenues — and been ignored or harmed
That the record is now external, timestamped, and non-negotiable
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because when a police officer tells you to take your abuse report back to the people who abused you,
they’re not resolving the issue — they’re recycling it.
Because when you say:
“I’ve archived the pattern and will keep publishing it,”
that’s not aggression —
that’s survival.
You don’t owe these institutions silence.
You owe yourself the record.
And now, so do they.
IV. Violations
Equality Act 2010 – Section 27
Victimisation through refusal to engage with safeguarding-related discrimination claimsHuman Rights Act 1998 – Articles 3, 6, and 8
Denial of remedy, degrading treatment, refusal of processPolice Code of Ethics – Integrity and Respect
Failure to investigate or acknowledge serious allegations of institutional retaliationFreedom of Expression – ECHR Article 10
Lawful right to archive and publish evidence of institutional abuse in the public interest
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a complaint.
It was a withdrawal of trust.
This wasn’t an escalation.
It was a declaration.
They closed the door.
So we built the archive.
And now, every reply is public.
Every silence is logged.
And every refusal gets a file name.
⟡ 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.