Scunnered Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 EIS have informed the Scottish Government that their members will not fulfill their roles as named person during school and bank holidays. Absolutely right to do so in my humblest of all opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Scunnered said: EIS have informed the Scottish Government that their members will not fulfill their roles as named person during school and bank holidays. Absolutely right to do so in my humblest of all opinions. They're also refusing to do it on weekends... A detail I missed earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 What a bounce! :ok:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Nick Eardley @nickeardleybbc 21m21 minutes ago UK Supreme Court has asked Scottish government to come back with changes. But aims of law legitimate, it believes. Philip Sim @BBCPhilipSim 16m16 minutes ago Basically, the Supreme Court has no problem with the principle of Named Persons - but didn't like specific information-sharing proposals Edited July 28, 2016 by Ally Bongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 If you were ever in doubt that Swinney was a complete and utter psychopath... Blairesque even. His comments. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/987069/supreme-court-blocks-totalitarian-named-person-scheme-historic-ruling/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, Scunnered said: If you were ever in doubt that Swinney was a complete and utter psychopath... Blairesque even. His comments. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/987069/supreme-court-blocks-totalitarian-named-person-scheme-historic-ruling/ Surely the headline being compete and utter pish for starters would have given you a red flag ? You can pull up your trousers im afraid Nicola Sturgeon Verified account @NicolaSturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Retweeted The Press & Journal This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 19 minutes ago, Scunnered said: If you were ever in doubt that Swinney was a complete and utter psychopath... Blairesque even. His comments. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/987069/supreme-court-blocks-totalitarian-named-person-scheme-historic-ruling/ Yeah, he's a psychopath for wanting to protect children from abuse. Well played you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 13 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said: Surely the headline being compete and utter pish for starters would have given you a red flag ? You can pull up your trousers im afraid Nicola Sturgeon Verified account @NicolaSturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Retweeted The Press & Journal This is shocking journalism. The court didn't describe it in this way. In fact, it said NP aim 'legitimate & benign' I don't see anything wrong with the headline... They've justified it sufficiently with excerpts from the court ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Scunnered is just joining in with the likes of Davidson, Tomkins, the BBC and everyone else that is SNP bad and celebrating .......well.....nothing. Not only are they celebrating nothing they have even accused the SNP spin machine of working overtime lol The attempt to block NP has failed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, biffer said: Yeah, he's a psychopath for wanting to protect children from abuse. Well played you. Yes... Because everyone opposed to the bill wants to see children abused. Moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions." - Sam Neil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scunnered said: "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions." - Sam Neil. That should be the SNP slogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Supreme-Court-rules-on-named-person-279f.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Ironic that we rely on the Union to protect us against the worst of the Scottish Government... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/austerity-government-policy-conservatives-poor-food-banks-inequality-un-a7110066.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, Scunnered said: Ironic that we rely on the Union to protect us against the worst of the Scottish Government... Is that the European Union you are talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Scunnered said: Yes... Because everyone opposed to the bill wants to see children abused. Moron. Right back at you, boy. Complete failure to understand the legislation or the ruling. You're so bright you could make a mine darker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 I love how you run away when Corbyn and labour are in the news getting roasted for the umpteenth fukk up of his short reign only to reappear to launch a pathetic attack on the SNP over nothing. This is why your party is so irretrievably fukked. You are the poster boy for everything that makes labour the basket case party of the decade and who knows you may actually die. I hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 28, 2016 Author Share Posted July 28, 2016 It's a shit idea. Don't enact shit ideas. " Rejected the petitioners’ argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters " so does this mean it needs UK approval then? It's not a "reserved" matter, is "reserved" a synonym for "devolved" in this case? Reading the actual document it states " This appeal concerns the question whether the provisions of Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) A ct 2014 lie within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament." However i'm away to take my gran out for coffee, so i'll come back to it, and maybe even sort out this formatting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 28, 2016 Author Share Posted July 28, 2016 Wishing folk die over political beliefs is sort of what is wrong with the world as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/named-persons-pyrrhic-victory-pyrrhic.html?m=1 Languedoc-Roussillon! I'm meant to be on my holidays, but the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is no respecter of summer sojourns. The Court just handed down its judgment in the Christian Institute's challenge to the Scottish Government's controversial Named Persons scheme. You can read the - far briefer - press summary here. And heaven knows, the hacks will need help reporting this one. Both sides will claim victory, and indeed, both sides have achieved important things in this judgment. It puts the headline writers in an awkward spot. The spin-machines will be whirling overtime. Everyone will take what they want from the decision, whether or not you can find it in the court's analysis. So what's the short version? Here follows a - very brief, dashed off holiday primer on some of the issues. I've only had time to make a hasty reading of the judgment in full. Forgive any weaknesses or glaring gaps in the speedy reaction that follows. The Christian Institute won -- the court, led by Lady Hale and Lords Reed and Hodge -- decided the Named Person scheme as presently constituted is unlawful. It is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 protects the privacy of your home and family life, of your correspondence. But in order to understand what the Court has and has not decided, you have to know a little more about how they approach Article 8. Privacy and family isn't an absolute right. It is qualified. The state is allowed to interfere with its citizens family lives -- if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, for example, the law permits children at risk to be taken from their parents. A more radical intervention in anybody's family life, it is difficult to imagine -- but if there is a good reason for doing so, Article 8 will not prevent it. The same goes, for example, about bugging the houses of people suspected of serious organised crime, or terrorism. A more radical intrusion into your home life, it is difficult to imagine, but if it is for a good reason, and strikes a fair balance between the collective interests of the community and the rights of the individual, Article 8 doesn't stand in its way. So for any given scheme which interferes with a citizen's privacy or family life, the court must ask itself three questions. One: does the scheme purse a "legitimate aim"? Does the government and parliament have a good reason for interfering with the rights of its citizens? Today, the Supreme Court held that the aim of the Act, "is unquestionably legitimate and benign". Two: judges must consider, is the measure "necessary in a democratic society"? Essentially, this means: is the measure proportionate? Does it go too far? Today, the Court fired a warning shot across the Scottish Government's bows, observing that because of weak guidance in the legislation, the Named Persons scheme does have the potential in some cases to disproportionately interfere with privacy and family life. But critically, this morning judges recognised the Named Persons scheme as a whole does pursue a legitimate aim, and can be proportionate across the piece. But judges expressed some pretty serious reservations about how the scheme will operate in individual cases, concluding that without clear guidance on the powers and responsibilities of Named Persons, the scheme as presently drafted "may in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information." Which brings us on to the third and final test, and the critical one in this appeal. Thirdly and lastly, the court must ask itself whether the scheme is "according to law"? This, rather than legitimacy or proportionality, is the key point in today's Named Persons judgment, and the basis for the Court's conclusion that the legislation - as it presently stands - is unlawful. In principle, we live under the rule of law. Decisions taken by our public authorities must not be arbitrary. There should be a clear legal basis for their actions, and more than that, decisions which interfere with fundamental rights must, in particular, have a clear and rational basis in law. That might mean the backing of parliament through legislation, or a decision of the courts. Here, the Named Persons scheme was enshrined in law by Holyrood in Part 4 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. But having some legal basis for a scheme isn't enough. The ECHR is not just concerned withwhether there is a legal basis, but the quality of the legal basis. The law must be clear about what powers and responsibilities public officials do and do not have under the legislation. That's the nub of today's decision, and that's where the Scottish Government has taken a tumble. Lord Hodge and his colleagues concluded that the legal rules governing the Named Person scheme currently aren't tight enough or clear enough to satisfy the ECHR. But critically, this can be fixed. The Scottish Government lost, but this decision does not permanently hull the Named Persons scheme below the waterline. I hope that makes things just a little clearer. There is, as I've said, something here for everyone. Sharply critical passages. Important concessions. Expect the partisans to seize their advantages where they may, and to spin like billy-oh. What we all ought to be able to agree on is this. This judgment calls for a fundamental reappraisal of how the named persons scheme is set out in primary and secondary legislation. It demands a very serious second look at the rules which have been put in place to govern the legal powers and responsibilities of Named Persons. John Swinney has indicated this morning that he intends to fix up the scheme, and "roll out" named persons as soon as possible. But with the proper amendments, nothing in this judgment prevents him from doing so. For the Christian institute, perhaps a Pyrrhic victory, for the Government, a Pyrrhic defeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 16 minutes ago, thplinth said: I love how you run away when Corbyn and labour are in the news getting roasted for the umpteenth fukk up of his short reign only to reappear to launch a pathetic attack on the SNP over nothing. This is why your party is so irretrievably fukked. You are the poster boy for everything that makes labour the basket case party of the decade and who knows you may actually die. I hope so. I've been on holiday :). It was enjoyable, I'm happy to be back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 FFS I was hoping labour die. Did you actually think I meant him. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 1 minute ago, thplinth said: FFS I was hoping labour die. Did you actually think I meant him. Oh well. It read like you meant me. I'm pleased you didn't. I love you Plinthy, even if you don't love yourself. One day you will realise that the SNP are just as New Labour as the New Labour you deteste so much. And when that day comes, I'll be there for you... Comrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Any sense of reality seems to have completely gone out of the window in Scottish politics. It seems that you're either pro-SNP, or anti-SNP, and every single issue is seen through that prism. Personally, I think this was a poor piece of legislation that was destined for failure from the beginning. Or at the very least, was set up to be challenged. Some of the hate that's already being spat out on forums though......simply because some people are delighted that the SNP are seen to be 'losing'......is beyond the pale. FFS, they're only a political party. They haven't raped anyone's daughter or committed mass murder. They are a democratic party that has been (overwhelmingly) voted in and is making decisions...for right or for wrong....according to what they deem best for Scotland. The animosity towards them by some people is bordering on pure, dead mentalness. Edited July 28, 2016 by Rossy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.