Named Person / State Guardians(209 Posts)
That started off well
A teacher appointed one of Scotland’s first “state guardians” faces a lifetime ban from working with children.
Dayna Dickson-Boath was yesterday struck off the teaching register for sharing fantasies about abusing youngsters.
And it's not liKley to end well. The whole thing is nothing but another of the SNPs attempts to control the population of Scotland. What other democratic country would allow state sponsored snoopers to interfere in normal families in this way? By all means provide professional help for those who need help, but allowing unqualified and unsuitable snoopers to interfere in family life is a step too far. If Nicola sturgeon had children I bet she would be less keen on this idea.
Opinion is rarely divided in the Delicateair household in opposing anything the SNP dreams up but oddly husband thinks the guardian thing is a good idea . I don't.
Mr Delicateair has asked his position is clarified. He says " no, it is a daft idea, I just didn't think it was as daft as you did"
I don't understand why more people haven't signed the No2named persons petition. Is it becuase they think it's a good idea, or lack of awareness or just apathy?
Lack of awareness most probably - I didn't know about a petition until I read your post Anthony
Its surprised me from the start that Mumsnet isnt ready to storm Holyrood with pitchforks.
Most people here don't like close relatives interfering - haven't they seen things like
A child protection training officer has been caught disclosing that taxi drivers are under a legal duty to spy on child passengers and report information to Named Persons.
Speaking during a GIRFEC (Getting It Right For Every Child) training day for voluntary sector workers, Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee’s Training and Development Officer Jim Terras stated, “if you’re contracted out for services to the local authority, you will have a duty, a legal duty, to assist the Named Person”.
If this gets through in Scotland its going to be in England. Do you want your two kids in a taxi discussing last nights argument and getting reported to Social Services?
More importantly should the resources of Childrens Services be spread over all children?
It's also nonsensical - one SNP policy is to enable votes at 16, butt with a guardian until 18.
I'm a teacher and I agree with the Named Person legislation.
Head teachers of schools have long since had this role for children in their care, as have social work managers.
No one is enabled to go snooping on families without very good reason, and taxi drivers may have an obligation to report anything they see or hear that alarms them, but what on earth is wrong with that? They escalate it to the appropriate service who decide what to do with the information they have received.
None of this is new, it's just that it's now enshrined in law rather than just being best practice guidance. And such is the case load of social services, there is no way they have time or resources to conduct full investigations into families unless there is significant reason to warrant it.
I'm with Anthony on this one. I increasingly find the way that the SNP government operates quite worrying. I have some (limited) knowledge of this scheme via my job and am gobsmacked that more people aren't stamping their feet about it.
The level of SNP interference in lots of issues and the absolute belief that its Government knows what's best at all times for the people is weirdly controlling. I'm quite capable of making my own mind up thanks. I don't require to be tracked, lectured to about my lifestyle, parenting style, told when and how often to read to my kids, and the numerous other choices and other decisions that the current Government wants to stick its beak into. And it's all for our own good apparently.
It's like the referendum campaign - if you indicated that you were planning to vote no then it was because you were scared, intimidated by the other parties or you just hadn't seen the light yet. Erm, no! I'm capable of having individual thought and all that. Same with the SNPs in Parliament all continuously voting the same way on everything because apparently they all have exactly the same thought processes, views and feelings. Not allowed to disagree with the party line at all.
Back to the named person thing - fair enough if a concern is raised about a child being in danger. Someone should clearly be stepping in. I can see however situations where overly involved wannabe social workers or possibly well meaning individuals (we all know them) take their named person role very seriously and potentially causing more harm than good. Focus the time, resources and finance on those families who genuinely need support and leave the rest of us the hell alone to get on with it please.
And the "named person" for both my children (Head) is also my boss, and DH's. Conflict? Certainly. How on earth could he be objective if he had a problem with the parents and then used that information to cause trouble? What about his access, as my boss, to medical details such as sick notes etc. Off sick with depression? Let's call in the heavies.......
It is a terrible idea which will end in failure/scandal.
Is there any other country in the world that has a similar scheme?
On one hand it makes sense to have one responsible Perron to feed concerns back to and might help some of the fell through the cracks cases.
On the other it's a dangerous slippery slope to start down.
I agree with it as well, for the same reasons as Superjaggy.
It doesn't make much difference where best practice is already happening except that the named person now has a duty of care by law to check in with children.
QueenLaBeefah I think you will find that was Nazi Germany & we all know how that ended up...
I can't believe people are happy about the level of interference which will result from named persons being imposed. Do you realise the extent of the powers being given to these people?
They will be able to gather and share information about you and your family from any source they decide; they are able to take action based on their assessment of what a young person needs for their wellbeing (in itself a very woolly term); and they can initiate action and intervene in anything going on in the young persons life if they think it necessary.
If you haven't already, I recommend you read some of the resources on the No to named persons website - the legal opinion for instance explains very well the powers these state snoopers will have. I for one don't want someone interfering in my family's life when there is no need for it.
Anthony, you seem to be inferring that there are suddenly hundreds of new and inexperienced people who have full time jobs snooping on families. I understand that the No to named persons campaign will have some compelling "what if" arguments but the reality is that the same people within the same councils with the same resources continue to be the Named Person, but now they have more children that they are legally obliged to have duty of care for. They will not suddenly have the time or inclination to open up new investigations unless there is a specific and tangible trigger for action.
Sadly some children in Scotland have slipped through the net over the years. The Named Person system is an attempt to stop that. Any campaign which tries to suggest that it's the beginning of state control is simply scaremongering. Any additional changes to the law would have to be fully debated in the Scottish Parliament, and there's no sign of that happening in any case.
As I understand it, the legislation doesn't really change anything? The information gathered is the same, the involvement with a particular child is the same, it is purely that a legal "the buck stops here" person is named?
Yep those things aren't new, we're talking about head teachers, guidance teachers, health visitors and people like that...
They should already gather information and act if they're concerned about a child, what's changed is that they now have a specific duty of care - so it should cut down on cases where no-one acts because no-one has bothered to check on children, someone now has a legal responsibility to do that.
The biggest problem is that the legislation doesn't define what the named person will be able to do, AND they've actually passed into law that the government can change it at any point without consultation. How democratic does that sound?
I'd much rather they spent the money the programme will cost (last I heard this was upwards of £30 million) on recruiting and training more social workers to actually help the people who already need it.
As far as I am aware nothing Changes at all. All that has changed is that the guidance teacher / primary head / health visitor / has more paper work than before potentially.
I perform one of the above roles and have noticed zero impact on my work load other than other professionals have to engage with me to support the child and family. I have no idea why parents wouldn't want that.
All those defending the legislation, have you read it? It gives huge power to the named person to interfere becuase they think something should be done for the child's "wellbeing". So, a head teacher could request and receive info on a child from another agency (egNHS) which in itself raises data protection issues, and then decide for that child's "wellbeing" that the child shouldn't be allowed to do,certain things. As this legislation applies to 18 year olds that could be something like not being allowed to,travel to a particular country with friends or take a certain job.
The whole thing is state interference where it's not needed and won't stop children slipping through the net.
And that lovely woolly term "wellbeing" isn't even defined in the legislation.
I despise the use of 'wellbeing' in inverted commas as though it is a secondary nonsense.
People who work with children have always had a safeguarding role. I find it peculiar that parents are uncomfortable with it.
Posted too soon! The legislation absolutely does change things. One of the core principles is that a Named Person has “responsibility for overall monitoring of the child’s wellbeing and outcomes”. This is definitely not what happens under existing legislation.
"I'd much rather they spent the money the programme will cost (last I heard this was upwards of £30 million) on recruiting and training more social workers to actually help the people who already need it."
The problem though is that there are children out there who absolutely should have SS involvement, but it's not happening because they slip through the net, this is to catch those children as well...it shouldn't be an either or thing.
SW aren't suddenly going to come round for petty reasons, it's to catch the cases of neglect and abuse that continue for years without anyone doing anything about it.
Though they should be investing in SW's as well.
Join the discussion
Please login first.