⟡ Epistemic Discrimination: The Credentials Double Standard ⟡
Filed: 4 September 2025
Reference: SWANK/CREDENTIALS/HYPOCRISY
Download PDF: 2025-09-04_Addendum_DoubleStandardOnCredentials.pdf
Summary: Westminster dismisses advanced interdisciplinary training while privileging its own narrower degree — exposing hypocrisy and bad faith.
I. What Happened
• For more than ten years, Westminster Children’s Services dismissed the mother’s qualifications, portraying her as “unqualified” to address welfare, education, or psychology.
• This dismissal persisted despite her holding three academic degrees, two of which directly relate to child development and psychology.
• By contrast, frontline social workers typically hold a single BA in Social Work and registration with Social Work England.
• The Local Authority privileged its own narrower training while erasing broader, interdisciplinary expertise.
II. What the Document Establishes
• Selective Dismissal – Credentials recognised only when they reinforce control, not when they illuminate truth.
• Hierarchical Hypocrisy – A Master’s in Human Development is ignored, while a BA in Social Work is treated as unimpeachable.
• Weaponised Ignorance – Credentials operate as exclusionary tools, not as markers of genuine expertise.
• Procedural Relevance – Psychology and human development are central to safeguarding; dismissing them is both irrational and prejudicial.
• Comparative Authority – The mother’s interdisciplinary credentials exceed the narrow scope of social work training.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
• To archive the epistemic hypocrisy at the heart of Westminster’s safeguarding practice.
• To preserve evidence that “qualification” functions here as a political fiction, not an intellectual standard.
• To expose that dismissal of a Master’s degree in favour of a BA is not merely inconsistent, but reputationally embarrassing for Britain.
IV. Applicable Standards & Violations
• Equality Act 2010 – Discriminatory treatment through selective erasure of credentials.
• Article 14, ECHR – Unequal recognition of qualifications based on institutional status.
• Children Act 1989 – Paramountcy principle undermined when professional bias erases relevant expertise.
• International Context – In the U.S. and elsewhere, such credentials would qualify the mother as a consultant, not a suspect.
V. SWANK’s Position
This is not professional judgment. This is credential hypocrisy, archived.
• We do not accept epistemic double standards.
• We reject credential erasure as policy.
• We will document that the dismissal of rigorous training in favour of institutional narrowness exposes the Local Authority as absurd.
⟡ 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.