Diane Abbot

[Menschlich]

No response re England and Wales, unsurprisingly.

I don't understand why people (of all political stripes) feel the need to defend their favourite parties over absolutely everything they do. It's ok to disagree.

[Scunnered]

I don't understand why people (of all political stripes) feel the need to defend their favourite parties over absolutely everything they do. It's ok to disagree.

Indeed.

[Maq]

It's ok to disagree.

No it's not.

[Menschlich]

No it's not.

You must be joking right?

[DonnyTJS]

It's ok to disagree.

No it's not.

You must be joking right?

[andymac]

He's behind you!

[Orraloon]

You've obviously never heard David Coburn?

That's exactly what I was thinking. The real kippers are so bad that it's hard to tell them from the spoof ones. I am clearly not as gullible as Flure and taken in by that "negro" thing but I can see how it could happen. Especially with aulder more trusting folk.

When you hear Farage live on TV spouting on and on about ex communists with aids it's easy to think they are capable of saying anything.

[Alibi]

My first reaction to the named person thing was "WTF?", but my wife, who is a teacher who is involved in pupil support, explained to me what it was about. It is being presented by the MSM as "SNP bad" but in fact it's nothing like that. My wife will be the named person for a lot of her pupils. Where kids are not at risk, there will be little or no involvement, but where kids are at risk, the named person will be able to take any necessary action to protect the child. This is not, despite what the Daily Mail will no doubt say, the Hitler* Youth (* insert your pet dictator's name here). it is just a formalisation of a system that already exists.

[Orraloon]

And there was you slagging aff poor auld Flure.

[DonnyTJS]

And there was you slagging aff poor auld Flure.

Eh? I was attempting to signify mild despair at Menschlich being whooshed by a fairly obvious joke. Give me some credit.

[Menschlich]

Eh? I was attempting to signify mild despair at Menschlich being whooshed by a fairly obvious joke. Give me some credit.

I did say it was likely to be a joke.

[DonnyTJS]

I did say it was likely to be a joke.

Yeah, I should've said "partially whooshed".

[Flure]

I am clearly not as gullible as Flure and taken in by that "negro" thing but I can see how it could happen. Especially with aulder more trusting folk.

Cannae argue

[mariokempes56]

Cannae argue

Eh ?

[Scunnered]

My first reaction to the named person thing was "WTF?", but my wife, who is a teacher who is involved in pupil support, explained to me what it was about. It is being presented by the MSM as "SNP bad" but in fact it's nothing like that. My wife will be the named person for a lot of her pupils. Where kids are not at risk, there will be little or no involvement, but where kids are at risk, the named person will be able to take any necessary action to protect the child. This is not, despite what the Daily Mail will no doubt say, the Hitler* Youth (* insert your pet dictator's name here). it is just a formalisation of a system that already exists.

It's not just the Main Stream Media that's in opposition though. A number of charities and child services have voiced their concerns including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, there's been a legal case raised against it, and it's being investigated as to whether it's against EU law.

1. It undermines families: Introducing a state employed Named Person for every child in Scotland by definition undermines the role of parents and carers, the vast majority of whom do an excellent job raising their own children and have no need or desire for third party involvement of this sort.

2. It wastes resources and jeopardises child safety: It is almost inevitable that by stretching resources to police the wellbeing of all children, attention will be diverted away from genuine cases of child neglect or abuse.

3. There is a serious risk of the powers being mis-used: By granting the Named Person sweeping legal responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of all children, there is a very real danger of families being needlessly embroiled in the system because a Named Person takes issue with a particular parent.

4. It may be in breach of European Convention rights to privacy and family life: Leading QC Aidan ONeill says the policy: may not be lawful on the basis that the 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.

5. It may breach EU law on data confidentiality: The Named Person legislation lowers the threshold to make it easier for officials to pass around confidential data like childrens medical reports. This may breach EU law on data sharing.

6. A broad coalition of organisations, individuals and newspapers have raised very serious concerns about the Named Person including: The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, The Christian Institute, CARE for Scotland, The Tymes Trust (for young ME sufferers), Schoolhouse (representing families who home-school), The Faculty of Advocates, The Law Society of Scotland, The Scotsman, The Press & Journal, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express.

From: http://www.votescotland.org/poll/should-scottish-government-introduce-named-person-scheme

Granted that's an Internet poll, but 90% of over 1000 respondents are opposed.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Scunnered

[Scunnered]

I'm not sure whether it's a Scotland wide thing currently or in my local authority, but my daughters school already has a Social Worker employed within the school, she's employed full time and is responsible for the two schools in the town. Outwith that I've no idea what her role is.

[andymac]

Thank you scunnered. You saved me a lot of typing.

[Orraloon]

Eh? I was attempting to signify mild despair at Menschlich being whooshed by a fairly obvious joke. Give me some credit.

Aye, I know. I wasn't laughing at you. But I can see how you might have thought that I was.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Orraloon

[Charlie Endell]

The named persons act is just a re-affirmation of what exists already with social worker health visitor and headmaster responsibility for vulnerable concerns.It is simply putting into law what has been in existence for years in the last few days i have spoken to 3 women that have specifically named this peace of legislation being some sort of SNP policy that terrifies them .Why ?It is already Law in England and Wales and has total cross party agreement.There is no argument .nothing to see.

I am puzzled as to what information you and others have read or seen.It is purely to help children at risk .Can you give me an indication where you are getting your information please.

Mh .I dont know what agenda or the validly of these publications .You can put anything out on the internet these days.But trust me It is concerning children at risk only .Rights to medical reports etc have been there for years.There is no legal challenge .The only legal challenge put forward stalled at first base and i think was more about LAK .Only a tiny percentage of children as viewed as "at risk"And this will help to ensure they are safe in law.

If there is ongoing legal activity it may just be the Law commission"info testing".Which is pretty standard for this type of procedure to final Act.It has been law in England for several years .Not an SNP issue but cross party agreement as to best practice.Unless some political dirty tricks is going on as to previous agreement (which would not surprise me) .One wifey i spoke to said the government could name anyone to be a guardian for no reason. And our child could be taken away

Utterly bonkers .All political parties must nip this in the bud now.

Utter bibberish.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Charlie Endell

[Orraloon]

Utter bibberish.

[Wine bibber]

Utter bibberish.

i could copy and paste it ,but since you have failed to give an opinion as to your statement here is a brief summary and reason.

n 2003, the Government published a Green Paper called Every Child Matters alongside the formal response to the report into the death of Victoria Climbié. After a thorough consultation process, the Children Act 2004 became law. This legislation is the legal underpinning for Every Child Matters, which sets out the Government’s approach to the well-being of children and young people from birth to age 19.

Every Child Matters received Royal Ascent on 8th November 2004 .See Childrens Act 2004.We had are own consultation in Highland Pathway.Our own Named Persons Act is simply a legal underpinning of what we already have in place and has been in place for decades .The Act recognises the need for improved communication by the relevant parties to prevent the death of abused children.it also sets up the legal framework for a more powerful and quicker response to families who have removed at risk children from the social environment.

Following cross party agreement and endorsement in law in England , the Scottish government will follow suit.There is nothing to worry about.It is a good law which is there to help vulnerable children.I hope this clarifies this for you

[Wine bibber]

Sorry just noticed Assent of course.Would mean something entirely different

Mikkeler Imperial rasberry stout 16.2 % in a wine bottle.Never type while boozing ...can hardly read the screen...

Edited May 2, 2015 by Wine bibber

[Charlie Endell]

The Children and Young People Bill goes way beyond the Children Act 2004 - only in Scotland will the state be able to investigate a family for any reason - a similar scheme (to 'named person') was introduced in the IoM but was abandoned because it was a disaster (there was a massive increase in referrals but no increase in the average number of children on the child protection register).

[DonnyTJS]

The Children and Young People Bill goes way beyond the Children Act 2004 - only in Scotland will the state be able to investigate a family for any reason - a similar scheme (to 'named person') was introduced in the IoM but was abandoned because it was a disaster (there was a massive increase in referrals but no increase in the average number of children on the child protection register).

Ah, Wine bibber opting for the tried and tested "I'll-just-bluff-it-out-thereby-implying-that-I-don't-think-anyone-else-can-read-thus-managing-to-make-an-even-greater-fanny-of-myself" gambit. Predictable and yet pathetic at the same time.

'Bibberish' is my word of the week.

[Orraloon]

'Bibberish' is my word of the week.

Aye, it is good. Do you think we could get it into the OED if we use it often enough?