Named Person For All Kids In Scotland

[Bobby Connor]

Just watching the politics show and had never even heard of this but it seems that we now have a literal manifestation of the 'nanny' state.

 

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/members-of-the-scottish-parliament-reject-girfec-surveillance-and-named-person-for-every-child-in-scotland

 

Completely fucked up idea that means all parents are assumed to be minks who are incapable of caring for their kids.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Completely fucked up idea that means all parents are assumed to be minks who are incapable of caring for their kids.

 

Hi Bobby - I agree with what you say. Seems to me like its a mechanism for the state to stick its beak in where it doesn't belong. most likely in an effort to enforce state orthodoxy.

 

I tried a thread about this back in Feb, but no-one much gave a f*ck then either, sadly.

 

I was even accused of scaremongering! See herE:

 

http://www.afc-chat.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=35841&hl=

[swifty]

I don't think it assumes ALL parents are incapable of looking after their kids, but it's fair to say that there are thousands of kids in Scotland who aren't being looked after adequately (for a host of reasons, eg parents being terminally ill or having issues with drink or drugs) and this measure acts as a safety net for them.

 

Most kids will never have the need for a named person, but by having one it reduces the risk of kids in need of assistance and support from slipping under the radar.

 

I'm totally against the state interfering in people's business, but I'm all for them intervening for kids who have a raw deal from no fault of their own.

[Ke1t]

EDIT: I'll read through this.

[Bobby Connor]

I don't think it assumes ALL parents are incapable of looking after their kids, but it's fair to say that there are thousands of kids in Scotland who aren't being looked after adequately (for a host of reasons, eg parents being terminally ill or having issues with drink or drugs) and this measure acts as a safety net for them.

Most kids will never have the need for a named person, but by having one it reduces the risk of kids in need of assistance and support from slipping under the radar.

I'm totally against the state interfering in people's business, but I'm all for them intervening for kids who have a raw deal from no fault of their own.

There are already measures in place to protect vulnerable children. How well they are implemented is the problem. This act would appear to open the door for the state to start interfering in the business of perfectly ordinary families. The old "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about" argument doesn't wash. This is like something you would expect from an old communist state.

 

And of course it makes that assumption. It is based on the premise that if you assume all parents are bad then you can avoid making any mistakes. It's completely over the top and an infringement on human rights.

[Bobby Connor]

I'm guessing that teachers will end up being the named person most of the time. What happens if that teacher is a busy body or a prick?

[swifty]

There are already measures in place to protect vulnerable children. How well they are implemented is the problem. This act would appear to open the door for the state to start interfering in the business of perfectly ordinary families. The old "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about" argument doesn't wash. This is like something you would expect from an old communist state.

And of course it makes that assumption. It is based on the premise that if you assume all parents are bad then you can avoid making any mistakes. It's completely over the top and an infringement on human rights.

The bill is about protecting rights, the rights of the child.

 

It has nothing to do with assuming all parents are bad. The named person will mean nothing to most kids and they will have no part to play in the vast majority of cases. However sometimes, and for a variety of reasons as stated in my previous post, there may be a role for someone who knows and works with the kid to involve agencies such as social work or health services.

 

In most cases the named person will be working alongside the parent(s) and offering them help and support, not pointing an accusing finger.

[Bobby Connor]

The bill is about protecting rights, the rights of the child.

It has nothing to do with assuming all parents are bad. The named person will mean nothing to most kids and they will have no part to play in the vast majority of cases. However sometimes, and for a variety of reasons as stated in my previous post, there may be a role for someone who knows and works with the kid to involve agencies such as social work or health services.

In most cases the named person will be working alongside the parent(s) and offering them help and support, not pointing an accusing finger.

You have a lot of faith in bureaucracy. So what happens if the perfectly normal parents get divorced, fall out with the named person or simply disagree on how many of his 5 a day little Johnny is getting? This puts the final word with the state on potentially trivial matters. It's a can of worms and remember, this is just the start. Who knows what sort of floodgate is being opened here?

[swifty]

You have a lot of faith in bureaucracy. So what happens if the perfectly normal parents get divorced, fall out with the named person or simply disagree on how many of his 5 a day little Johnny is getting? This puts the final word with the state on potentially trivial matters. It's a can of worms and remember, this is just the start. Who knows what sort of floodgate is being opened here?

The scenario you give is not a trivial matter. There are kids, thousands of them, that are malnourished and require help. The reason for the malnourishment may be neglect, or more likely due to poverty. If its neglect the named person would be responsible for calling that in, and surely that's the right course of action to take. If its due to poverty, the named person can work with the family to find solutions and offer the assistance of other agencies.

 

I appreciate your cynicism, and generally agree that the nanny state is unwelcome. However, I don't see this Bill being designed to do anything other than protect children, especially vulnerable ones.

[Bobby Connor]

The scenario you give is not a trivial matter. There are kids, thousands of them, that are malnourished and require help. The reason for the malnourishment may be neglect, or more likely due to poverty. If its neglect the named person would be responsible for calling that in, and surely that's the right course of action to take. If its due to poverty, the named person can work with the family to find solutions and offer the assistance of other agencies.

I appreciate your cynicism, and generally agree that the nanny state is unwelcome. However, I don't see this Bill being designed to do anything other than protect children, especially vulnerable ones.

I don't doubt that the bill is made with the best intentions. The fundamental problem I have with any act that affords more power to the state is how it is open to abuse further down the line. Detention under the Terrorism Act being a classic example but I actually think this is worse. This is an example of the state grabbing additional powers "under the radar". We shall see if it's even legal under the human rights act or whatever criteria it's being objected against on.

[Bobby Connor]

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that the named person always knows best?

[swifty]

I don't doubt that the bill is made with the best intentions. The fundamental problem I have with any act that affords more power to the state is how it is open to abuse further down the line. Detention under the Terrorism Act being a classic example but I actually think this is worse. This is an example of the state grabbing additional powers "under the radar". We shall see if it's even legal under the human rights act or whatever criteria it's being objected against on.

I agree that the Terrorism Act was a disgrace and purely designed to rob people of their civil liberties, but I really don't think that's the motive behind the Children and Young People Bill but I guess only time will tell.

 

As for the named person always knowing best, obviously that is not always the case. However, they are in the best position to access all the available help for a vulnerable young person.

[Bobby Connor]

We shall indeed see. I'm somewhat stunned that this hasn't provoked any sort of debate within Scotland with the potential implications and magnitude of it.

 

Guess we're all too busy arguing about independence to notice. Politicians are crafty like that.

[Bobby Connor]

Just to recap. Every child will have to have a named person (a state approved godfather if you like). This is not optional and chances are they will be sat there with a clipboard making sure little Johnny is within state approved weight and dietary guidelines, that he is reading state approved books, that he isn't a potential threat to the countries security and that he is basically a good wee "citizen" or "comrade". Parents will likely be sent to Siberia or little Johnny sent off for armed service if he shows a degree of creativity or rebellion.

 

Laugh all you want and I may be exaggerating in the interest of making a point but this is how that shit is started. Smuggled in under the auspices of national security and welfare. Cunts.

[Bobby Connor]

Just to keep things simple, let's drop "named person" in favour of Big Brother. Has a better ring to it.

[Bobby Connor]

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that Big Brother knows best?

Yup, has a certain resonation to it.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

There is a campaign against the legislation, see here:

 

http://no2np.org/

 

The "stories" section looks good where ordinary people discuss their own objections to the policy (I haven't watched any of the videos as yet).

 

On one hand, its just the self-promoting public sector creating more "non-jobs" for itself, but there is a real sinister side of state interference - made worse given public sector officials are rarely competent in any matter.

 

There are various credible objections, but speaking from the perspective of a religious person, the state may attempt to use these powers to enforce dominance of glib secular morality in a child's upbringing.

[Bobby Connor]

There is a campaign against the legislation, see here:

 

http://no2np.org/

 

The "stories" section looks good where ordinary people discuss their own objections to the policy (I haven't watched any of the videos as yet).

 

On one hand, its just the self-promoting public sector creating more "non-jobs" for itself, but there is a real sinister side of state interference - made worse given public sector officials are rarely competent in any matter.

 

There are various credible objections, but speaking from the perspective of a religious person, the state may attempt to use these powers to enforce dominance of glib secular morality in a child's upbringing.

Had a read but haven't been able to watch the vids yet. Pretty much reflecting my strong concerns and objections with one of them describing it as "a bit like big brother".

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The legal challenge to the "named person for every child" has been dismissed from court.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-30935806

 

Aidan O'Neill QC, a human rights law expert, said of this legislation:

 

"he blanket nature of this provision constitutes a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the right to respect for individual families’ private and family life and home"

 

and that the scheme is:

 

“predicated on the idea that the proper primary relationship that children will have for their well-being and development, nurturing and education is with the State rather than within their families and with their parents”

 

that the bill contains no

 

"proper protection against the possible arbitrary and oppressive use of the powers”

 

and the scheme applies “without any provision for consent of either the child or its parents"

 

See here for more info (The QCs quotes come from the 2nd link below)

 

Govt angle:

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person

 

Objectors angle:

 

http://no2np.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Christian-Institute-Named-Person-Briefing.pdf

 

 

Child welfare is a good thing, something to be concerned about, but it is parents who should have the principle relationship with their own child - not the state - regarding welfare / development and indeed all matters.

 

Who want some public sector jobsworth sticking their neb in to family life?

 

Nanny state bullshit.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Hooray, the supreme court has today blocked this "big brother" scheme.

 

Its (another) one in the eye for Wee Nippy Sturgeon and her cabal of wallopers.

 

The court ruled that the legislation breached human right law (denying people the right to a private family life) and the official judgement went on to reference totalitarian regimes:

 

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” (Para. 73)

 

The Govt will now have to amend the scheme to comply with human rights and make it more comprehensible in general.

 

What is also worrying was that the Scottish Courts dismissed objections to the policy as "hyperbole", despite these obvious flaws in it. With such Courts and this SNP Government, it another reason we can be glad we voted for the status-quo regarding the UK.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513

 

Edit - also concerning that there was no significant opposition to this within the Holyrood chamber, a bunch of "yes men" regardless of their party colour.

[dave_min]

^^^

 

Definite kiddie fiddler.

[RAZOR]

Bring Bobby Connor home.

[The Hulk]

What is also worrying was that the Scottish Courts dismissed objections to the policy as "hyperbole", despite these obvious flaws in it. With such Courts and this SNP Government, it another reason we can be glad we voted for the status-quo regarding the UK.

 

Worrying to people like yourself who are contributing to said hyperbole, because that is exactly what it is - it is ill-informed, sensationalist and only serves to cloud the issue in hand.

It is not a bad law, it is a badly-drafted law.

The idea behind the law is good. It is the legal drafting and terminology contained therein that bears closer scrutiny, this is exactly what the court has ruled and in my opinion, rightly so. But I am in favour of the named persons policy and hopefully we'll get a deliverable and fair version of it coming through in the fullness of time.

[beer gut]

I don't see the need for this named person scheme TBH. Its quite scary. Once the state has a little bit of power, especially councils, it tends to be abused.

 

Generally when young kids are killed due to abuse you tend to find that folk didn't do there jobs. Take that two lesbians who killed the little boy recently. The boy was known to authorities but he fell of the radar because the person handling the case went on holiday. Maybe if people and departments were doing their jobs properly then this named person shit wouldn't ever have reached this stage.The SNP should be concentrating on making sure social services etc do what they are paid to do instead of wasting their time on this piece of shit scheme.

[donsdaft]

"Named Persons"

 

 

What a load of absolute bollocks.

 

 

If you don't want kids abused then get rid of poofs.

[robbojunior]

Hooray, the supreme court has today blocked this "big brother" scheme.

 

Its (another) one in the eye for Wee Nippy Sturgeon and her cabal of wallopers.

 

The court ruled that the legislation breached human right law (denying people the right to a private family life) and the official judgement went on to reference totalitarian regimes:

 

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” (Para. 73)

 

The Govt will now have to amend the scheme to comply with human rights and make it more comprehensible in general.

 

What is also worrying was that the Scottish Courts dismissed objections to the policy as "hyperbole", despite these obvious flaws in it. With such Courts and this SNP Government, it another reason we can be glad we voted for the status-quo regarding the UK.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513

 

Edit - also concerning that there was no significant opposition to this within the Holyrood chamber, a bunch of "yes men" regardless of their party colour.

 

Whilst i'm nae a particular fan of the whole idea, I still have to laugh at how quick and eager you are to stick the boot into the SNP at every opportunity and also misrepresent the truth.

 

The reference to totalitarian regimes is in relation to how the principle of the universal declaration of human rights and of the international covenant on civil and political rights were established. It is not a reference to the Scottish Government in relation to this case.

 

The court said the aim of the Act, which is intended to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people, was "unquestionably legitimate and benign".

The judges said in general terms the law - part of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 - did comply. But they ruled some changes are required to the scheme.

In particular the way in which information could be shared by named persons and others was ruled non-compliant.

 

So basically the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the principle and the aim of the act, but the way in which it allowed information to be shared needed to be reviewed.

[caledonia]

Hooray, the supreme court has today blocked this "big brother" scheme.

 

Its (another) one in the eye for Wee Nippy Sturgeon and her cabal of wallopers.

 

The court ruled that the legislation breached human right law (denying people the right to a private family life) and the official judgement went on to reference totalitarian regimes:

 

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.” (Para. 73)

 

The Govt will now have to amend the scheme to comply with human rights and make it more comprehensible in general.

 

What is also worrying was that the Scottish Courts dismissed objections to the policy as "hyperbole", despite these obvious flaws in it. With such Courts and this SNP Government, it another reason we can be glad we voted for the status-quo regarding the UK.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513

 

Edit - also concerning that there was no significant opposition to this within the Holyrood chamber, a bunch of "yes men" regardless of their party colour.

 

Total pish and just any snpbad excuse

you need to really read the judgement its going ahead with a few minor tweeks

 

why dont you want children protected all the children services and nearly all the political parties backed this

[robbojunior]

Just noticed that the case was brought by the Christian Institute - nae wonder Clydeside is all over this like a priest in a playground.

[caledonia]

Just the usual snpbad reporting by the P&J

Below is the truth

 

[caledonia]

Please note the child abusers celebration party has now been cancelled