“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 Police Complaint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police Complaint. Show all posts

Four Visits, No Badge: The Lawless Logistics of Forced Contact


⟡ “He Refused to Leave It With Reception” — A Package Too Urgent to Be Legal ⟡

Filed: 18 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MPS/DOORSTEP-01
📎 Download Full PDF Report – 2025.06.18_PoliceReport_UnidentifiedDoorstepHarassment_StalkingLog_SWANK.pdf
Summary: Stalking complaint submitted to police following repeated doorstep intrusions by unidentified male courier insisting on illegal personal delivery.

I. What Happened

Between Saturday 15 June and Tuesday 18 June 2025, an unidentified man made four unsolicited visits to a private residence in Bayswater, London — each time insisting that a mysterious “package” must be handed directly to the occupant, despite:

  • Repeated refusals, both written and verbal

  • Medical exemption from direct contact

  • Reception staff explicitly offering to accept delivery

He refused to leave the package with reception, ignored posted signage, and on the final visit, forced the object through the letterbox after being told not to. The pattern escalated over four consecutive days and was captured on doorbell video surveillance.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Persistent unlawful trespass and refusal to comply with boundary refusals

  • Harassment-like conduct bordering on coordinated stalking

  • Violation of health accommodations (including medical exemption from verbal contact)

  • Interruption of child educational provision (home education)

  • Signs of covert surveillance or intimidation effort disguised as package delivery

  • No formal notice, no name badge, no identification — only repeat appearance and insistence

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because when an institution sends a man to listen at the mail slot, insist on personal handover, and force objects into private spaces — repeatedly and without warrant — it ceases to be delivery and begins to look like coercion theatre.

This pattern of behaviour mimics state intimidation rituals disguised as procedural logistics. It is both beneath due process and above the legal threshold for police interest. When delivery becomes a device for pressure, and when pressure wears a courier’s backpack, it must be logged, published, and filed.

This isn’t about mail.
It’s about power.

IV. Violations

  • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – s.1 and s.2

  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – s.68 (Aggravated Trespass)

  • Equality Act 2010 – Failure to Respect Medical Adjustment

  • Data Protection Act 2018 – Unauthorised Surveillance Concerns

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – Interference with Education

🎥 Linked Surveillance Footage

1. Saturday Visit – 15 June, 8:30am
📹 Watch on YouTube

2. Sunday Visit – 16 June, 2:00pm
📹 Watch on YouTube

3. Tuesday Visit – 18 June, 12:00pm
📹 Watch on YouTube

⟡ 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:

They Got the Report. Then Sent the Threat.


⟡ “We Told Our Lawyers. Then We Told the Council. Then Kirsty Sent a Threat.” ⟡

Polly Chromatic Forwards Refusal Notice and Police Report to Blackfords and Merali Beedle After Sending to Westminster and RBKC

Filed: 18 February 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-07
📎 Download PDF – 2025-02-18_SWANK_EmailChain_Blackfords_RefusalNotice_PoliceReport_Kirsty.pdf
Summary: Email chain confirming legal service of refusal notice and police complaint regarding Kirsty Hornal to solicitors and safeguarding personnel across multiple boroughs.

I. What Happened

On 18 February 2025 at 09:50 AM, Polly Chromatic forwarded the following documents:

– Her Formal Refusal to Cooperate Notice
– A police report against Kirsty Hornal

These were sent to:

  • Simon O'Meara (Blackfords)

  • Laura Savage (Merali Beedle)

  • Sarah Newman (Westminster)

  • Samira Issa, Glen Peache, Rhiannon Hodgson, and others at RBKC

  • NHS contact Philip Reid

  • Additional cc to government accounts

The forwarding email clearly references attachment of both files and provides full service trail.

II. What the Record Establishes

• The refusal notice and police complaint were formally submitted and disseminated
• Kirsty Hornal was under active police complaint before issuing any PLO letter
• Legal counsel (Blackfords, Merali Beedle) was in the loop — ensuring chain of custody
• Safeguarding leads and borough management received documentation
• Timeline confirms retaliation occurred after formal legal notification

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because retaliation isn't just unethical — it's traceable.
Because every email sent before the PLO becomes a defence against its legality.
Because legal counsel receipt makes the silence louder.

SWANK logs the moment legal and safeguarding systems were told — and did nothing.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept that PLOs can be issued against police complainants.
We do not accept that silence after notice equals innocence.
We do not accept that the archive has no memory.

This wasn’t just an email. It was a legal marker — and they ignored it.

⟡ 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