“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

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

In re Chromatic v. Westminster: On the Bureaucratic Pageantry of Paper Credentials


⟡ The Hierarchy of Degrees ⟡

Filed: 4 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/DEGREES/DOUBLE-STANDARD
Download PDF: 2025-09-04_Addendum_DoubleStandardOnDegrees.pdf
Summary: Law degrees are sacred, social work degrees are decisive, psychology degrees are authoritative — but a Master’s in Human Development is “irrelevant.” This is not logic, it is hypocrisy in ceremonial robes.

I. What Happened

• The mother’s Master’s degree in Human Development was dismissed as irrelevant.
• Judges invoked their law degrees as the source of judicial authority.
• Social workers leaned on BA-level training in social work.
• Assessors rested credibility on psychology degrees.
• The result: a false hierarchy where state-sponsored credentials were decisive, but parental expertise was erased.

II. What the Document Establishes

• Logical Collapse – If one degree is irrelevant, all are irrelevant.
• Selective Recognition – Bureaucracy exalts its own paper while disregarding others.
• Procedural Failure – Degrees invoked everywhere, yet the mother’s credentials erased.
• Discrimination – A two-tier system that privileges the state’s narrative over parental expertise.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

• To expose the institutional theatre of degrees — where paper substitutes for truth.
• To record the hypocrisy of demanding compulsory schooling while declaring advanced education meaningless.
• To preserve evidence that the only degree directly relevant to child welfare (Human Development) was the one systematically erased.

IV. Applicable Standards & Violations

• Children Act 1989, s.1 & s.17 – Welfare paramountcy ignored, duty to support breached.
• Equality Act 2010, s.19 – Indirect discrimination through selective recognition.
• Article 6, ECHR – Fair trial rights violated.
• Article 14, ECHR – Unequal treatment without justification.

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not safeguarding. This is the bureaucratic pageant of degrees, archived.

• We do not accept selective recognition of qualifications.
• We reject the hypocrisy that crowns law degrees while dismissing Human Development.
• We will document that the Local Authority’s authority collapses once stripped of its ceremonial paper.

⟡ This Entry Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡

Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.

Filed with deliberate punctuation, preserved for litigation and education.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd.

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.