Named Person Act

[phart]

27 minutes ago, stocky said:

from a newspaper today 

•  

 

 

More specifically the Daily Record and Joan Mcalpine. Full article here http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-tories-put-political-7521719#PQgtGVeiBp4sIOE4.97

[sub50]

I am normally a quiet lurker on this board. But in this instance have something valuable to add. 

I am a Child Care Manager and a Child Protection Professional. I have read many reports, like the Baby P case and there are more than you can imagine. 

The most common thread in all of them is that there was lots of information floating around at the time the child died but no single person had the full picture. That this person will be in the school, usually the Head, does not mean that they are going to be tasked with a lot of extra work. It will be their job to blow the whistle and let other services take over. 

This is not interfering in the job of being a parent. 

[Scunnered]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

More specifically the Daily Record and Joan Mcalpine. Full article here http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-tories-put-political-7521719#PQgtGVeiBp4sIOE4.97

I stand by my assessment. 

25 minutes ago, Scunnered said:

That's some lovely propaganda you've posted there

 

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

Fair point (as was mine)

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

Thanks for that.  Given that she was convicted *before* she was appointed then it does indeed look as if something has gone wrong there.  Even Dr Stuart Walton who is one of the biil's most vocal opponents doesn't believe its relevant as far as the bill is concerned.

 

[phart]

So there will be "not a lot of extra work", but the teacher will be required to keep a "full picture" on a couple of hundred pupils on a dynamic and constant basis. Also there is "lots of information floating around" which they'll no doubt need to process to keep the full picture. Hopefully you'll forgive me for being unable to hold both those ideas as true without seeing a contradiction.

[Scunnered]

6 minutes ago, sub50 said:

That this person will be in the school, usually the Head, does not mean that they are going to be tasked with a lot of extra work.

What brought you to this conclusion out of interest?  The EIS say otherwise?  As do the SASW.

[phart]

I don't have children as a disclosure, so folk with children should have more of a voice. So i'm away to do some other shit, but will come back to the thread tomorrow.

[aaid]

1 minute ago, phart said:

So there will be "not a lot of extra work", but the teacher will be required to keep a "full picture" on a couple of hundred pupils on a dynamic and constant basis. Also there is "lots of information floating around" which they'll no doubt need to process to keep the full picture. Hopefully you'll forgive me for being unable to hold both those ideas as true without seeing a contradiction.

I'd assume that they use some form of exception reporting methodology, i.e. in 99%  of children there will be nothing out of the ordinary but in the 1% of the cases where something is suspicious you will have someone who can look at the whole picture and then escalate as appropriate.  I doubt named persons will be poring over reams and reams of documentation on a daily basis.

[Scunnered]

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that this act is the formalising of the current procedure.  Something that I feel should be brought to the thread for this reason, and also in contest to Sub50's "no extra work load", is that as part of the legislation the Named Person still has to perform the role "Out of Term time".  i.e when they are on holiday.

[Dillinger]

I'm in this line of work too. 

 

Unlike sub50, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't see how just because they've brought in this legislation, people are going to get any better at sharing information - in my experience there are always instances when police, social work, school, whoever, don't share as much info as they could about individuals. 

All it means is that when something does happen - something that perhaps no one could have seen coming or known about, or many people need to take the blame for not catching - one poor sod who's probably already struggling with their workload will take the blame. 

[Huddersfield]

The Labour Government tried to introduce something similar a few years ago (possibly only England & Wales, but I forget). I remember being called to a 'confidential' briefing that showed us how every child would go onto this system & every professional involved with them (teacher, GP, etc.) would be logged. Any concerns would bump them up a tier...anyway the whole thing vanished without trace, presumably after paying umpteen millions to IT consultants before the cleaner explained to them why it was flawed.

[ParisInAKilt]

Responsibility for the safety of vulnerable children should be shared. On the surface this doesn't look like a good idea. 

[Huddersfield]

7 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Responsibility for the safety of vulnerable children should be shared. On the surface this doesn't look like a good idea. 

Exactly. I think what the system I was party to was meant to achieve was to create an electronic means of handling what actually needs to be a human & common sense issue.

[Auld_Reekie]

From what I gather, this is a just formalising existing processes and has been used for some time now in the Highlands with considerable success and support from the relevant professions there.

Im finding it hard to get worked up about. 

[Alibi]

My wife is a teacher, and part of her role is guidance.  She was initially strongly in favour, but she has cooled on it a bit because she feels that what will happen is that the named person will be the one getting chased down the street by reporters from the tabloids if anything happens to any children for whom she is the named person.  The idea is a good one (and for most kids the named person will never be involved at all, but will merely be like a fire alarm, there but never needed) but there are reservations about how it will work in practice.

I wonder if the opposition from the mainstream media (SNP bad) is in any way connected with their traditional protection of paedophiles in positions of power.  Would this scheme have prevented some of the abuse by the likes of Saville and Janner?  It's also worth remembering of course that the act is not all about child abuse in the accepted sense - it's also about protecting children who have utterly feckless parents who aren't capable of bringing up children - many of the parents of children at my wife's school are addicts of one sort or another, or involved in crime, and their kids don't stand a chance - the only adults in their life who can be depended on are their teachers and school is one place where they feel safe and secure.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Alibi

[Dillinger]

Of course that's what will happen Alibi. Every time there's some tragedy involving child abuse, the media fall over themselves to blame social work, schools, police, and whoever else had anything to do with the child. With this, all that blame is just going to fall squarely on the shoulders of one person who as you say, will get hounded. 

A mate of mine works in social work and made a very good point to me recently - because of the confidential nature of what they do, they're never able to sing from the rooftops about their successes, as it wouldn't be appropriate and might identify the person they've been supporting. So unlike my work where we can publicise our achievements and successes, he never gets to let people know about the good work going on in social work - the point he made was that the only stories you read about social work are negative ones, ie when they're getting blamed for a child's death at the hands of a parent or whatever. 

[Huddersfield]

20 minutes ago, Dillinger said:

Of course that's what will happen Alibi. Every time there's some tragedy involving child abuse, the media fall over themselves to blame social work, schools, police, and whoever else had anything to do with the child. With this, all that blame is just going to fall squarely on the shoulders of one person who as you say, will get hounded. 

A mate of mine works in social work and made a very good point to me recently - because of the confidential nature of what they do, they're never able to sing from the rooftops about their successes, as it wouldn't be appropriate and might identify the person they've been supporting. So unlike my work where we can publicise our achievements and successes, he never gets to let people know about the good work going on in social work - the point he made was that the only stories you read about social work are negative ones, ie when they're getting blamed for a child's death at the hands of a parent or whatever. 

My wife is a social worker as well & spent years in child protection. I couldn't agree more with that. Social Workers probably save thousands of childrens lives every year but are treated like crap, paid peanuts & driven out of the profession by stress just when they start to gain competence leaving the less competent ones to progress into management, which is exactly what is happening in most authorities I know about.

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, Alibi said:

I wonder if the opposition from the mainstream media (SNP bad) is in any way connected with their traditional protection of paedophiles in positions of power.  Would this scheme have prevented some of the abuse by the likes of Saville and Janner? 

 

 

[thplinth]

3 hours ago, Alibi said:

 Would this scheme have prevented some of the abuse by the likes of Saville and Janner?  

Saville & Janner were actively protected IMO. I dare say they were caught / reported / complained about many many times especially Saville. But they acted with total impunity. Saville was like a made man - able to go where and do what he wanted. Having some khunt as a named person would make no difference to his victims. 

[thplinth]

Don't like this proposal at all. Classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. 

[sub50]

22 hours ago, aaid said:

I'd assume that they use some form of exception reporting methodology, i.e. in 99%  of children there will be nothing out of the ordinary but in the 1% of the cases where something is suspicious you will have someone who can look at the whole picture and then escalate as appropriate.  I doubt named persons will be poring over reams and reams of documentation on a daily basis.

I don't think that there is a national description of how the role is to be executed, but that sounds broadly right. 

 

21 hours ago, Scunnered said:

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that this act is the formalising of the current procedure.  Something that I feel should be brought to the thread for this reason, and also in contest to Sub50's "no extra work load", is that as part of the legislation the Named Person still has to perform the role "Out of Term time".  i.e when they are on holiday.

Sorry let me re-phrase 'little extra workload.' The holiday situation I cannot comment on as my context is 365 days a year. 

 

13 hours ago, Dillinger said:

Unlike sub50, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't see how just because they've brought in this legislation, people are going to get any better at sharing information - in my experience there are always instances when police, social work, school, whoever, don't share as much info as they could about individuals. 

All it means is that when something does happen - something that perhaps no one could have seen coming or known about, or many people need to take the blame for not catching - one poor sod who's probably already struggling with their workload will take the blame. 

At the minute there is a systematic failing. Read the Daniel Pelka case for an example of this, lots of people had bits of the picture but there was no clear person that all the info should have gone to. What you mention is individual failings and no system can eliminate the possibility of people not doing their jobs properly. 

This is not the solution to all the worlds ills, it is not perfect.

But it will help a lot of children.  

[Scunnered]

Iain Macwhirter reads the TAMB:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/columnists/iain_macwhirter/14332840.Iain_Macwhirter__Yes__so_called_state_guardians_are_at_the_very_least_a_snoopers__charter/

[phart]

3 hours ago, Scunnered said:

Iain Macwhirter reads the TAMB:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/columnists/iain_macwhirter/14332840.Iain_Macwhirter__Yes__so_called_state_guardians_are_at_the_very_least_a_snoopers__charter/

See i should be a journalist, no part time courses i can find though.

[Hertsscot]

I was speaking to one of our child protection officers when we started back in the autumn. She expressed her concerns at the increasing ease in which children can just disappear in England due to cutbacks, lack of Education Welfare Officers etc.

Parent removes child from school, as is their right, and then there's no-one left to check up where they've gone to, particularly if the family moves area.  By the time anyone realises anything is wrong or eventually catches up with them the kids dead in a ditch or in Syria.

Must admit by first response to Named Persons is worry, sounds totalitarian but it may be these types of situations which it could prevent.

[phart]

.

 

Edited March 15, 2016 by phart