Named Person Act

[phart]

"From 31 August of this year, a "named person" will be appointed to monitor the welfare of every child in Scotland.

Opponents of the scheme are attempting to have it quashed by the law courts, arguing that the legislation amounts to a "Big Brother" scheme that will undermine parents, breach a family's right to privacy and divert resources away from children who are genuinely vulnerable."

I thought this was a wind-up, so they're really appointing a state-nanny for every single person born in Scotland. Some right sinister shit there. I see one of the first "guardians" picked can't work with children anymore because "yesterday [they were]struck off the teaching register for sharing fantasies about abusing youngsters."

You can't say no, the state just walks right into your life and won't leave.

Is there a way to see the votes on the

The Children and Young People

(Scotland) Act

so i can vote accordingly

 

 

[Scunnered]

19 minutes ago, phart said:

"From 31 August of this year, a "named person" will be appointed to monitor the welfare of every child in Scotland.

Opponents of the scheme are attempting to have it quashed by the law courts, arguing that the legislation amounts to a "Big Brother" scheme that will undermine parents, breach a family's right to privacy and divert resources away from children who are genuinely vulnerable."

I thought this was a wind-up, so they're really appointing a state-nanny for every single person born in Scotland. Some right sinister shit there. I see one of the first "guardians" picked can't work with children anymore because "yesterday [they were]struck off the teaching register for sharing fantasies about abusing youngsters."

You can't say no, the state just walks right into your life and won't leave.

Is there a way to see the votes on the

The Children and Young People

(Scotland) Act

so i can vote accordingly

 

 

I've brought this up a few times on here.  From memory Greens and Labour opposed with SNP, Conservative and Lib Dems supporting.

Full details and list of ammendments are here.  I'd help you sieve through it but I'm just heading out for a curry xxx

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=9473&mode=pdf

 

Edit:  There is/was a challenge being heard in the Supreme Court that the act is against EU law (irony), I followed the first day yesterday but couldn't tell you a thing about how it went today.

 

Edit2:  On second thought I think it was just the Greens and Independents who opposed the bill, you'll need to check the amendments as to who opposed the Named Person Act itself.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scunnered

[phart]

just reading through it now, going to take a while. so many amendments over a hundred.

[Scunnered]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

just reading through it now, going to take a while. so many amendments over a hundred.

Best of luck to you chief.  My Mrs has been campaigning against this thing from day one, she knows a great deal about it more than I do, but it's something she's pretty passionate about.

[Mindimoo]

It's a ridiculous idea.  Money should be concentrated on vulnerable children and families first.

[phart]

It's such a ridiculous idea i'm looking for motives other than the stated ones.

As my friend says " Seems highly likely it will divert already scarce resources from children who are vulnerable by trying to police everyone. "

Doesn't help one of the first guardians appointed was being evangelical about their fantasies of sexually abusing them, now struck off the register and probably banned from working with children forever.

Aye the state has done a great job of protecting children historically.

 

 

[aaid]

11 minutes ago, phart said:

Doesn't help one of the first guardians appointed was being evangelical about their fantasies of sexually abusing them, now struck off the register and probably banned from working with children forever.

Surely that demonstrates that the system is working.

[Scunnered]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

Surely that demonstrates that the system is working.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

[Mindimoo]

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Surely that demonstrates that the system is working.

Not really if they were appointed first THEN struck off.

[aaid]

1 minute ago, Scunnered said:

I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

The fact that someone who poses a risk to children has been identified and then removed from the system.  As far as I'm aware, having fantasies isn't committing any sort of crime but clearly in this case it isn't someone who should be working with children.   Now if this had been 20 years ago what would probably have happened is that the person would either have been left in place or would have been eased out so as not to cause a fuss with the potential of turning up working with children somewhere else with no-one any the wiser.

1 minute ago, Mindimoo said:

Not really if they were appointed first THEN struck off.

Well it all depends on when they started sharing their fantasies really.

[sbcmfc]

34 minutes ago, Mindimoo said:

It's a ridiculous idea.  Money should be concentrated on vulnerable children and families first.

Is it not just a way of formalising an existing process?

Health Visitors, school teachers and the likes already perform this role surely?

I'd presumed the vast majority of folk would never really need to know or be aware of their names person??

[phart]

13 minutes ago, aaid said:

Surely that demonstrates that the system is working.

To you maybe, you happy to guarantee it's working then? since you think it demonstrates it's working?

With that information my first thought isn't ah the system is working.

2 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

Is it not just a way of formalising an existing process?

Health Visitors, school teachers and the likes already perform this role surely?

I'd presumed the vast majority of folk would never really need to know or be aware of their names person??

the act is posted here, i'm reading through it, my understanding is it isn't. That might change as i read it but doesn't seem that way at all.

Presumption might not be the best way to know about the act

[stocky]

well the unions are for it

the children s charities are for it, Barnardos, Childrens First, Nccp( ?) etc

the school teachers union are for it

I presume  these guys know what they are talking about.

 

On the surface it seems a terrible idea.

 

I havent made up my mind

However it was brought in when Baby P in Paisley was found dead because too many agencies and different people were involved and no one took responsibility for the child

so this would make 1 person responsible.

 

 

edit  ps and Scunnered is against it...  so that could swing it for me...

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by stocky

[phart]

I see teachers are being used as named persons, Is no one aware the teaching profession is on it's knees with stress before adding this onto them.

Now they have a legal responsibility to make sure that each of their 200 children "Your child gets a say in things like how their room is decorated and what to watch on TV"

Having one person to blame when all the agencies fail again doesn't seem like a good idea, perhaps improve the agencies instead of giving them 10's of thousands of more clients.

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by phart

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

To you maybe, you happy to guarantee it's working then? since you think it demonstrates it's working?

With that information my first thought isn't ah the system is working.

First of all I'm not familiar with the case you are referring to.  If the individual in question could have reasonably be known to have been a risk before they were in post then there is a problem.  

If they weren't - which is the assumption I am making - then if someone starts to either behave or show signs of behaving in a way that they shouldn't be dealing with kids and they are removed from post and put on a register that ensures they are not able to work with children in the future then I would view this as the child protection system working, caveat that with assuming this is done in a fair and timely manner.   Short of reading the minds of everyone involved in working with children then its hard to see what more you can do.

[Scunnered]

5 minutes ago, stocky said:

well the unions are for it

the children s charities are for it, Barnardos, Childrens First, Nccp( ?) etc

the school teachers union are for it

"The childrens charities" is misleading.  There are also childrens charities against it.  "The Teachers Union is for it" is also misleading, EIS, the countries largest teachers union has expressed "serious concerns" over the act and workload on teachers.

[phart]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

First of all I'm not familiar with the case you are referring to.  If the individual in question could have reasonably be known to have been a risk before they were in post then there is a problem.  

If they weren't - which is the assumption I am making - then if someone starts to either behave or show signs of behaving in a way that they shouldn't be dealing with kids and they are removed from post and put on a register that ensures they are not able to work with children in the future then I would view this as the child protection system working, caveat that with assuming this is done in a fair and timely manner.   Short of reading the minds of everyone involved in working with children then its hard to see what more you can do.

If you're not familiar with it, then why use it as evidence that the system is working, that is daft. " Surely that demonstrates that the system is working."

 

[stocky]

1 minute ago, Scunnered said:

"The childrens charities" is misleading.  There are also childrens charities against it.  "The Teachers Union is for it" is also misleading, EIS, the countries largest teachers union has expressed "serious concerns" over the act and workload on teachers.

ok, i was watching Newsnight Scotland last night when it was up for debate and that was not the impression I got,

Both  the charity guy and the Union guy were for it.. 

 

Both Journalists were also for it...  

I got the impression, that those who dont really know that much about it were against it and the Labour party of course..because its an snp idea..

The MSM is also against t, but again thi sis because oits an SNP idea..  

 

I really dont see it as an issue..

 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, phart said:

If you're not familiar with it, then why use it as evidence that the system is working, that is daft. " Surely that demonstrates that the system is working."

 

I was talking in the general sense, if you wanted to talk about specifics then maybe it would have been an idea to include a link to the case instead of assuming everyone else knew what you were talking about.

[Scunnered]

5 minutes ago, stocky said:

I got the impression, that those who dont really know that much about it were against it and the Labour party of course..because its an snp idea..

Is that the impression you get?

Labour are for it btw, they tabled a few amendments, but those being defeated wasn't enough for them not to back it.

The SASW are against it by the way.  And to use your words "I presume these guys know what they're talking about".

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scunnered

[stocky]

from a newspaper today 

•  

If I asked you if a health visitor or school head teacher or guidance teacher should safeguard the 
wellbeing of the children in their care, I imagine 99 per cent of you would agree.

If I suggested the teacher or health visitor should share concerns about a child’s wellbeing with other professionals – and vice versa – you would see that as common sense.

And if the child or their parents need help and support, they should have a point of contact – a teacher or health visitor seems sensible.

This, in simple language, is the “named person” legislation .

You might ask why it wasn’t already happening. But in some parts of Scotland it has been happening for years.

The named person is simply a way of ensuring this good practice happens consistently so that we get it right for every child.

This sensible move, in the Children and Young People’s (Scotland) Bill 2014, is supported by a range of organisations.

They include Barnardos Scotland, Children 1st, the Royal College of Nursing, One Parent Families 
Scotland and Scottish Youth Parliament and more

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by stocky

[stocky]

14 minutes ago, Scunnered said:

Is that the impression you get?

Labour are for it btw, they tabled a few amendments, but those being defeated wasn't enough for them not to back it.

The SASW are against it by the way.  And to use your words "I presume these guys know what they're talking about".

what is/are the SASW?  

 

[Scunnered]

Scottish Association of Social Workers.

[Scunnered]

7 minutes ago, stocky said:

from a newspaper today 

•  

If I asked you if a health visitor or school head teacher or guidance teacher should safeguard the 
wellbeing of the children in their care, I imagine 99 per cent of you would agree.

If I suggested the teacher or health visitor should share concerns about a child’s wellbeing with other professionals – and vice versa – you would see that as common sense.

And if the child or their parents need help and support, they should have a point of contact – a teacher or health visitor seems sensible.

This, in simple language, is the “named person” legislation .

You might ask why it wasn’t already happening. But in some parts of Scotland it has been happening for years.

The named person is simply a way of ensuring this good practice happens consistently so that we get it right for every child.

This sensible move, in the Children and Young People’s (Scotland) Bill 2014, is supported by a range of organisations.

They include Barnardos Scotland, Children 1st, the Royal College of Nursing, One Parent Families 
Scotland and Scottish Youth Parliament and more

 

That's some lovely propaganda you've posted there

As with ANYTHING coming out of the Scottish Government, I suggest looking past the soundbytes and do what Phart is doing.  They're often dishonest. *Cough* "we're fully committed to the living wage for public service workers" *Cough*.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scunnered

[phart]

41 minutes ago, aaid said:

I was talking in the general sense, if you wanted to talk about specifics then maybe it would have been an idea to include a link to the case instead of assuming everyone else knew what you were talking about.

Fair point (as was mine)

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/818531/lifetime-ban-moray-teacher-sexually-explicit-text-messages/