⟡ The Man Looked Through the Slot Before He Knocked ⟡
A surveillance act disguised as a delivery. A boundary crossed in plain view.
Filed: 17 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/RETALIATION-09
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-17_SWANK_Retaliation09_ForcedSlotDelivery_SurveillanceRefusal.pdf
An unsolicited mail-slot delivery was recorded after an unidentified man refused lawful delivery channels, surveilled the household through the letterbox, and caused emotional and educational disruption to the child present.
I. What Happened
At approximately 12:02 pm on 17 June 2025, an unidentified male approached our home for the forth time. Before knocking, he leaned into the letterbox and listened through the door without announcing himself.
Upon knocking, he was informed by the resident:
“I don’t receive packages at my door. You can leave it at reception.”
A porter on duty offered to accept the package. The man refused.
He insisted the package be “hand delivered.” The resident repeated the refusal, citing written-only protocol. The man then forced the item through the front door mail slot without consent. A minor was present and redirected away from the door. The incident was recorded and timestamped.
This occurred within 48 hours of formal SWANK legal notices, audit escalation, and Judicial Review filings.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
• Surveillance behaviour preceded any verbal contact
• Reception protocol was offered and explicitly refused
• A medically documented communication boundary was violated
• The resident is under a lawful written-only protocol
• A child’s education was disrupted and the minor experienced visible distress
• The event forms part of a pattern of timed procedural intimidation following public oversight notices
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because intrusion isn’t just noise — it’s choreography.
Because watching through a door before knocking isn’t concern — it’s control.
Because this wasn’t delivery.
It was a test of compliance, resistance, and parental authority under surveillance.
Because a frightened child, a forced envelope, and a rejected porter offer
is not service.
It’s theatre.
IV. Violations
• Equality Act 2010 – Disability adjustments and communication protocol breached
• Education Act 1996 – Home education unlawfully disrupted
• Children Act 1989 – Misuse of safeguarding as procedural threat
• Data Protection Act 2018 – No lawful record of contact
• Judicial Review Interference – Unlawful informal contact during pending legal process
V. SWANK’s Position
This was not a delivery attempt.
It was the ninth recorded act of procedural escalation through untraceable contact.
We do not accept slot-level surveillance.
We do not accept safeguarding disguised as disruption.
We do not accept contact that uses our children to trigger fear compliance.
This is not a welfare action.
It is Retaliation 09.
Video Evidence
Watch the recorded incident: https://youtu.be/K3828d8xgzo?si=pXVsL6IhTh8vO68S
⟡ 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.