⟡ “He Looked Through My Mail Slot. Then He Forced a Package Through It. Then He Left Without a Name.” ⟡
This Wasn’t a Delivery. It Was Surveillance With a PDF.
Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/RETALIATION/UNMARKED-DELIVERY-17JUNE
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_IncidentRetaliation_PackageSlotInAfterAudit.pdf
Incident report and evidentiary email to solicitor documenting a coercive hand-delivery by unidentified man following public audit release.
I. What Happened
On 17 June 2025, an unidentified man arrived at the home of Polly Chromatic and forcibly shoved a package through the front door mail slot. No name was given. No warrant was shown. The act occurred within hours of a SWANK blog post publishing the audit of Westminster Children’s Services. The man opened the mail slot beforehand to peer inside. The recipient — a disabled litigant in ongoing proceedings — experienced the event as threatening, especially given its timing, lack of identification, and prior retaliation patterns.
A video was recorded and is now archived:
📹 Watch Video – Retaliatory Slot-In (17 June 2025)
📹 Watch Video – Follow-up Bicycle Departure (20 June 2025)
II. What the Complaint Establishes
The visit was unannounced, unbadged, and procedurally undocumented
Occurred immediately after SWANK released a major evidentiary audit
The act of prying through the mail slot violated physical and emotional boundaries
The package was not requested, consented to, or identified by authority
It was clearly part of a pattern of intimidation by delivery — not information sharing
This wasn’t compliance. It was an intimidation tactic masquerading as post.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because documents don’t require surveillance to arrive.
Because a hand through the door is not neutral — it’s a threat.
Because this wasn’t a procedural drop-off. It was a retaliatory message without a signature.
Because the video tells the story better than any redacted report ever could.
Because SWANK doesn’t just report misconduct — we film it.
IV. Violations
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – Behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 – Violation of home privacy and personal security
Equality Act 2010 – Intimidation of disabled litigant with communication-related impairments
GDPR Principles (Article 5) – Lack of purpose transparency or data-processing legitimacy
Common Law Trespass – Physical intrusion by forcing item through mail chute uninvited
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t delivery. It was a performance of presence after documentation made them nervous.
This wasn’t an accident. It was an orchestrated act of intimidation — caught on camera and timestamped.
This wasn’t professional. It was procedural theatre, enacted without badge or warrant.
SWANK has now archived the footage, the correspondence, and the context.
We are not waiting for further visits.
We are documenting every knock. Every slot. Every silence.
⟡ 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.