⟡ SWANK Police Retaliation Audit ⟡
“No Further Action: A Bureaucratic Genre.”
Filed: 3 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/IOPC/REF2025-003917
📎 Download PDF — 2025-04-03_SWANK_IOPC_Acknowledgment_NoAction_Response_Ref2025-003917.pdf
I. A Police Visit Was Reported. The Regulator Replied With Shrug Syntax.
This is the formal reply issued by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following a lawful complaint concerning:
Police officers dispatched to a disabled household
In direct breach of a written-only disability adjustment
Following a safeguarding threat by email from a known local authority officer
What returned was not inquiry. Not correction. Not even curiosity.
What returned was an institutional shrug — elegantly typeset and deeply disinterested.
No interview. No assessment.
Just: “No further action.”
II. What the Document (Doesn’t) Say
It makes no reference to:
The Equality Act 2010
The complainant’s medical exemption
The retaliatory nature of the incident
The prior complaint history
Or the question:
Why were police officers sent to a silent household in the first place?
The IOPC didn’t dispute the facts.
They simply withdrew from them.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because failure to act is a genre, and it deserves citation.
We filed this as part of the SWANK Retaliation Index because:
The harm was real
The procedure was unlawful
The response was emblematic of regulator drift
Let the record show:
The event was real
The complaint was structured
The IOPC received it
And they — left it untouched
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not confuse institutional politeness with accountability.
We do not consider “acknowledgment” a meaningful response.
We do not permit a shrug to replace a standard.
This wasn’t oversight.
It was genre-correct evasion — trimmed in header font and procedural passivity.
The officers arrived.
The rules were broken.
The regulator blinked.
And SWANK — filed that too.