Featured post

⟡ CHILDREN STILL HELD ⟡

Regal, Prerogative, Kingdom, and Heir — four U.S. citizens — were unlawfully seized by Westminster on 23 June 2025. No contact. No updates. ...

“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

Documented Obsessions

A Tantrum with a Business Card: Emotional Immaturity & the Impulse to Retaliate



๐Ÿ•ฏ SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Working Paper No. 2025-06-R01

Filed Under: Shame Reflex, Regressive Behaviour, Annotated Pettiness


๐Ÿง  Emotional Immaturity & the Impulse to Retaliate

A Field Guide to Petty Behaviour in Grown Bodies


๐ŸŽฉ Executive Summary

Retaliation is not the pursuit of justice.
It is the nervous twitch of the unregulated ego.

Behind the impulse to strike back lies not strength, but fragility in silk gloves — a desperate attempt to reassert control when one’s illusions of moral superiority have been punctured.

This paper is not a comfort. It is a mirror.


I. What Is Retaliation, Really?

Retaliation is what emotionally undercooked people do when:

  • They are held accountable

  • Their behaviour is reflected back to them

  • Their story stops working

  • Their performance is no longer received with applause

It is not righteous indignation. It is emotional indigestion.

"You hurt my feelings with reality, now I will punish you with drama."


II. Why the Emotionally Immature Retaliate

Because to them:

  • Accountability feels like betrayal

  • Boundaries feel like abandonment

  • Accuracy feels like attack

They do not reflect. They react — swiftly, messily, and with a tone of moral panic dressed as authority.

They do not say:

“You’re right.”
They say:
“How dare you notice.”


III. Telltale Signs of the Retaliator Class

  • They rewrite the event to cast themselves as protagonist and victim

  • They confuse correction with humiliation

  • They deploy social performance in lieu of inner work

  • They escalate before they self-reflect — if they ever do

They are often seen issuing:

  • Surprise “concerns”

  • Retroactive clarifications

  • Carefully worded emails in HR-safe language with a subtext of:

    “This person made me feel small. Please make them disappear.”


IV. Retaliation Is Regressive

It is psychological time travel — back to the logic of the playground:

“You embarrassed me. Now I’ll get even.”

What follows is not strategy, but symmetry — vengeance without structure, wrath without weight.

It is the behaviour of someone who cannot hold discomfort, so they throw it like a hot coal into someone else’s lap — and call it professional.


V. What Retaliation Reveals

Far from proving power, retaliation betrays:

  • An inability to sit in one’s own shame

  • A need for external correction to feel like personal persecution

  • A hunger for control over another’s reality, not just one’s own

Retaliation is not a power play.
It is a tantrum with a business card.


⚖️ Conclusion: Don’t Be Impressed. Annotate It.

Retaliation is not evil. It’s just underdeveloped.
It is the psychological equivalent of being bad at chess and flipping the board.

So when you see it, know this:

  • You’ve stepped on something sensitive

  • You’ve threatened someone’s self-narration

  • You’ve made the invisible visible — and they’re punishing you for your vision


๐Ÿชž Final Note from the Mirror Court:

Retaliation is a confession.
And in the Archive, we always let them speak first — so we can footnote it later.



Two Kingdoms, One Complaint: Police Retaliation, Racial Harm & Medical Endangerment (2016–2025)



๐Ÿ•ฏ SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-18-Intl-Retaliation

Filed Under: Cross-Jurisdictional Misconduct, Racial Trauma, Medical Endangerment, Procedural Sabotage


๐Ÿ“œ RECORD OF POLICE RETALIATION & MEDICAL ENDANGERMENT

Jurisdictions: United Kingdom · Turks and Caicos Islands (British Overseas Territory)
Finalised: 18 May 2025
Submitted by: Polly Chromatic
Preferred Contact: ✉ Written Communication Only – View Statement


I. Executive Summary

This complaint documents a pattern of cross-jurisdictional misconduct, racially motivated inaction, and medical endangerment, spanning from 2016–2025. It includes coordinated procedural retaliation following lawful complaints, disability disclosure, and safeguarding misuse. The incidents occurred under state authority in:

  • The United Kingdom

  • The Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) — a British Overseas Territory

The submission establishes:

  • A failure to protect a disabled parent and her children

  • Retaliatory safeguarding escalation

  • Obstruction during medical emergencies

  • Racial profiling, including uninvestigated allegations of sexual assault


II. Turks and Caicos Islands: Institutional Harassment by Design

Involved Bodies:

  • Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police Force

  • Ministry of Health and Human Services (MOHHS)

  • Department of Social Development (DSD)

๐Ÿ“‚ Documented Events:

  • 2017–2020: Repeated forced entries into family home without warrant or justification; removal of children under false safeguarding pretext

  • 2020: Coordinated school and neighbour collusion resulting in unfounded safeguarding interventions

  • 2021.07.30–2021.10.19: Institutional retaliation involving MOHHS, the Department of Social Development, and TCI Police

  • 2021.10.19: Ambulance access obstructed during emergency; children denied urgent medical care due to false reports

  • 2017: Allegation of state-enabled sexual assault of children during exam procedures — never investigated

๐Ÿ’ฅ Harm Caused:

  • Racial profiling, surveillance, and social punishment

  • Obstruction of emergency medical care

  • Documented psychological trauma to children

  • Sexual harm under government supervision, followed by institutional silence


III. United Kingdom: Procedural Retaliation & Hate Crime Neglect

Involved Bodies:

  • Metropolitan Police Service

  • Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS)

  • Hate Crime Unit

๐Ÿ“‚ Documented Events:

  • 2023–2025: Repeated failure to investigate hate crime reports linked to racialised abuse from ex-partner’s family

  • 2024.08.04: Formal hate crime statement submitted — no substantive response

  • 2025.05.18: Statement on family-based racial discrimination filed — no confirmation of receipt

  • Ongoing police refusal to respect written-only communication;
    unannounced visits and intimidation despite confirmed medical exemption

๐Ÿ’ฅ Harm Caused:

  • Racial trauma and systemic neglect

  • Erosion of disability adjustments and safe housing

  • Procedural harassment masked as “welfare”

  • Interference with lawful home education due to state misrepresentation


IV. Relief & Remedial Actions Requested

I formally request the following actions be taken:

  1. That this record be lodged as a cross-jurisdictional formal complaint, spanning UK and TCI

  2. That copies be forwarded to:
    – TCI Commissioner of Police
    – UK Metropolitan Police DPS
    – Hate Crime Unit

  3. That this be investigated under applicable statutes:
    – Hate crime
    – Disability discrimination
    – Failure in public duty of care

  4. That the report be linked to my ongoing civil proceedings and UN submission currently in progress


Submitted by:
Polly Chromatic
London, United Kingdom
✉ director@swanklondon.com
๐Ÿ“ Finalised: 18 May 2025



Auto-Deflection as Policy: Protect’s Email Refusal to a Safeguarding Disclosure



⟡ "We Don’t Accept Whistleblowing by Email." ⟡
The Nation’s Leading Whistleblowing Charity Responds to Retaliation Evidence with… a Webform

Filed: 28 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/PROTECT/EMAIL-01
๐Ÿ“Ž Download PDF – 2025-05-28_SWANK_Email_Protect_AutoReplyWhistleblowingDeflection.pdf
Summary: Auto-response from Protect NGO, rejecting whistleblower disclosure on systemic safeguarding failures unless submitted via online form.


I. What Happened

On 28 May 2025, a whistleblower briefing was sent to Protect — the UK’s best-known whistleblowing charity — detailing systemic retaliation and safeguarding abuse within Children’s Services. The reply? An automated message refusing to engage via email, instructing the sender to use a contact form instead. No acknowledgement. No triage. No exception.


II. What the Complaint Establishes

• There is no accessible pathway for whistleblowing where disability or urgency prevents use of forms
• Protect does not accept or log disclosures submitted by standard, timestamped email
• High-risk safeguarding retaliation was met with digital silence
• The power imbalance is baked into the infrastructure: if you can’t fill in their box, your case disappears
• Institutional duty is replaced by bureaucratic rerouting
• Real-time threats are treated as technical errors, not moral emergencies


III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the refusal to receive evidence — especially from disabled whistleblowers — is not a technicality. It’s a systemic filtering mechanism.
Because structural inaccessibility is how whistleblowing is defanged, even within organisations designed to protect it.
Because this wasn't one broken link — it was a closed circuit of plausible deniability.

SWANK logs failures of intake as institutional acts in themselves. The reply was the event. And we timestamped it.


IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that silence via automation is neutral.
We do not accept that online-only portals are accessible for all.
We do not accept that a whistleblowing body can evade engagement and still claim legitimacy.

This wasn’t policy. This was a wall.
And SWANK was built to leave a mark on every one.


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.


The Investigation That Wasn’t: Police Inaction, Evidentiary Silence, and the Cost of Being Ignored



๐Ÿ•ฏ SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-23-MPS-INVFAIL

Filed Under: Investigative Farce, Evidentiary Apathy, State-Sanctioned Incompetence


Filed By:
Polly Chromatic 
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens
London W2 6JL
✉ director@swanklondon.com

Date: 23 May 2025

To:
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
Customer Service Centre
PO Box 473, Warrington WA4 6QP

and/or

Metropolitan Police Service
Professional Standards Department
PO Box 78553, London SE11 1YU


๐Ÿ›‘ FORMAL COMPLAINT

Failure to Investigate with Due Diligence, Law, or Basic Professional Decency


๐Ÿ“œ A Complaint Composed in Disgust and Documentation

Dear Sir or Madam,

Consider this not a request, but a written reckoning.
I am lodging a formal complaint concerning the Metropolitan Police Service’s prolonged failure to investigate critical incidents concerning myself and my children — with anything resembling professionalism, integrity, or law.


๐Ÿ•ณ Background: The Investigation That Wasn’t

Across 2023–2024, a series of investigations were carried out — or rather, cosplayed — by the Metropolitan Police. These actions, ostensibly initiated to assess incidents involving our family, failed to meet the most minimal standards of lawful inquiry.

Instead, I was presented with an illusion of investigation: all form, no substance.
All uniform, no truth.


⚖️ Key Failures Committed (Repeatedly, Without Shame)

• Critical CCTV and corroborating evidence ignored
• Witnesses left uninterviewed — as though relevance were optional
• Written submissions from me disregarded — no acknowledgment, no incorporation
• Process substituted with prejudice, escalating confusion into procedural harm
• Lasting damage — emotional, reputational, legal — inflicted by omission


๐Ÿ“š Legal Frameworks Breached (Spectacularly)

  • Breach of public duty to conduct timely, impartial, and thorough investigations

  • Violation of Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998 — Right to a Fair Trial

  • Negligence and maladministration under statutory duties

  • Procedural sabotage masquerading as investigative discretion

The result: not just error, but deliberate underreach — a systemic shrug in the face of documented vulnerability.


๐Ÿงพ Remedies Formally Demanded

I hereby require the following actions:

  1. comprehensive independent review of the case and its evidentiary suppression

  2. An explanation — preferably in writing, not muttered through procedural fog — as to why key materials were ignored

  3. Internal accountability for officers involved in negligent conduct

  4. Written confirmation that new procedural safeguards will be instated

  5. formal written apology, addressed appropriately, acknowledging harm, failure, and the institutional rot underlying both


๐Ÿ–‹ Communication Clause

Due to disability, I am formally exempt from verbal interaction.
This includes phone calls, in-person discussions, and other auditory performances.
All correspondence must be in writing only — a medium institutions find inconvenient precisely because it is permanent.


Please confirm receipt of this complaint and outline the steps that shall (or shall not) follow.


Polly Chromatic
Director, SWANK London Ltd.
Flat 22, 2 Periwinkle Gardens, London W2
✉ noellebonneannee@me.com



“We do not scream. We file.” — Mirror Court Motto

This Isn’t Care. It’s Control. A Criminal Complaint from the Mirror Court.



๐Ÿ•ฏ SWANK London Ltd.

✒️ Dispatch No. 2025-05-29-Crim-Misc

Filed Under: Velvet Retaliation, Safeguarding Farce, Procedural Sadism


๐Ÿ“ฃ PUBLIC NOTICE

For Immediate Archival & Consequence
29 May 2025


๐Ÿ›ก A Criminal Complaint from the Velvet Front

Safeguarding Rewritten as Retaliation. Care Recast as Control.


LONDON, UK — A disabled mother and her four asthmatic children have issued a formal criminal complaint alleging misconduct by multiple public agencies:

  • Westminster Children’s Services

  • NHS Trusts

  • The Metropolitan Police

What’s been called “protection” was, in practice, a choreographed regime of cruelty — featuring falsified referrals, unlawful interrogations of children, and a pointed refusal to accommodate diagnosed medical conditions.


๐Ÿฉบ The Complainant

Polly Chromatic

Diagnosed with:
• Eosinophilic asthma
• Muscle tension dysphonia
• PTSD (acquired courtesy of institutional theatre)

Her four children also carry asthma diagnoses. Instead of care, they were offered intrusion. Instead of protection, escalation. Instead of support, a silent siege.

“This isn’t child protection. It’s punishment by process,”
— Polly Chromatic


⚠️ Highlights from the Complaint:

• Fabricated safeguarding referrals filed after medical discrimination
• Children questioned unlawfully, without representation
• Disability adjustments ignored — written-only contact denied
• PLO and CP escalation used punitively
• Police refused to obtain CCTV that would have exonerated the family


⚖️ Cited Breaches Include:

• Equality Act 2010
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Fraud Act 2006
• Children Act 1989
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

The complaint — elegantly titled
“Section VII: Legal Breaches and Grounds for Criminal Investigation” —
has been submitted to:
• Metropolitan Police – Directorate of Professional Standards
• Social Work England
• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)


๐Ÿงพ Additional Proceedings

The family has also filed:
• A civil claim (N1) for damages exceeding £23 million
• A judicial review (N461) challenging unlawful safeguarding escalation


๐Ÿ–‹ Access Protocol

Ms Simlett is medically exempt from verbal communication.
All inquiries must be submitted in writing only.

๐Ÿ“œ Written Communication Statement:
www.swanklondon.com/p/written-communication-statement.html


๐Ÿ“ฎ Contact

✉ director@swanklondon.com
๐ŸŒ www.swanklondon.com

Secure access to the legal bundle available on request.