Named Person / State Guardians

[cdtaylornats]

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.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/teacher-appointed-first-named-person-state-guardian-struck-off-1-4014998#ixzz3yd6RqX21

I wonder if the lack of people being overly bothered about this is due to most people believing (probably rightly) that they are fairly decent/normal/average parents and the reality is that it just wont affect them on a day to day basis. Its all very well saying that it gives some nominated person to snoop around about my family but (imo) no one is going to be snooping around my family because (a) they have enough work to do without causing themselves even more (especially teachers) unless they really have cause for concern about a particular child.

I think you're absolutely right, harrassed.

But coupled with the ID database it means that the state will have a dossier filled with a combination of fact and rumour.

Now while I might believe the every civil servant with access in the 120 agencies allowed to look at that dossier is honest and careful, I might also consider they can be bribed, blackmailed or careless.

harrassed consider the possibility of you applying for a high level job in childcare, your boss in the vetting process looks at the file and sees the headmistress of your local primary school noted that your daughter 15 years ago said you had hit her. It also notes an unexplained absence from high school from 10 years ago. A further not explains how the guardian when she was 16 (and you were divorcing) notes that your daughter seems unhappy and is not meeting her expected educational attainments.

Think you would get the job - still think its harmless?

Or your daughters named person is married to an insurance seller who persuades his partner to do a quick check to see if you had any existing conditions.

I was reading this thread and the links, and thinking exactly the same as Harrassed.

Can you please show me where in the act it says that potential employers will have access to files pertaining to information about my child? I have not read/heard anything suggesting this. As for your other speculations, Id give it the same regard as i do to the police. They have access to information files pertaining to me but I trust that the vast majority don't want to endanger their livelihoods by accessing them. I dont see anyone campaigning against the dangers of police forces holding information on us in case one of them is married to an insurance seller who persuades his partner to do a quick check as you suggest. And it does happen within the police. There was a case of this (police officer accessing files for personal reasons) in my area in the last 2 years. But it is very rare and the pros outweigh the cons.

The ID database is an entirely different issue...and I find it pretty unlikely that anyone would be storing minutes from every meeting a child ever has in a file about a different person...

Explain one pro of a state database ?

At least with the Police its one agency, with the id database its 120 agencies.

Given the civil service ability to lose data it does worry me, the state guardian is one input - you can believe the best, I believe the worst and it will begin half way between, but I bet it drifts to my end.

"Explain one pro of a state database?"

Why? It's a completely different issue and I'm not supporting that.

Its not a different issue, the guardians will be one of the sources for the database and one of the users.

If the potential employer is offering a job where there are safeguarding issues then when they run the Disclosure Scotland check they will get access.

I wonder if the lack of people being overly bothered about this is due to most people believing (probably rightly) that they are fairly decent/normal/average parents and the reality is that it just wont affect them on a day to day basis. Its all very well saying that it gives some nominated person to snoop around about my family but (imo) no one is going to be snooping around my family because (a) they have enough work to do without causing themselves even more (especially teachers) unless they really have cause for concern about a particular child.

you are possibly correct in that most people will have too much work already on to do even more themselves but its a shit reason to allow ill thought out legislation to go pass through Scottish parliament.

It is a different issue in that I can think the named person is a good idea and a database a bad one without conflating them into one issue.

i guess like all new legislation we will just have to wait until it is fully implemented, up and running and any teething problems resolved before the general public make their minds up whether it 'interferes' with their lives too much against what it purports to do. Personally though i'd rather give it a chance that it might help some of the children that desperately need it, safe in the knowledge that i dont think it will ever really affect me as a normal parent.

It's been working well in the Highland region since 2009.

Presumably as you are happy with this kind of surveillance you are okay with GCHQ reading your emails and analysing you browsing habits.

They' ll struggle to do that with me

It's not surveillance, its exactly the same information sharing that has always gone on, except now one person in the information sharing group is named as point of contact for all involved.

Harassed (and everyone who has posted in support of your post since), thank you for posting that. I was beginning to think that I was living in a parallel universe!

"Presumably as you are happy with this kind of surveillance you are okay with GCHQ reading your emails and analysing you browsing habits."

Surveillance? Do you think teachers and health visitors have so much spare time that they're going to be spying on children with perfectly satisfactory home lives?

In my real life, precisely one person has tried to kick up a fuss about the named Guardian. And she is vehemently anti SNP and i think this has more to do with it more than anything else. Everyone else I know honestly doesnt care, its not on their radar and not even worth discussion. Because it doesnt affect them one jot.

here are some links to some of the documentation for the named person legislation and the gifrec documentation for those who have not read it - neither of the links have any viruses btw.

www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00487884.pdf

no2np.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=81e0edb40e1dcbfcf8003af09&id=4cfff1ee24&e=3da5274609

I can see the intention behind this but the legislation is far too reaching and far too invasive and gives the named person too many rights over family. I wonder how this can be compatible with the human rights act that you have a right to private & family life...

I wonder how it can be compatible with the ECHR too peggy. I find the whole thing completely Orwellian!

It is all very well people saying oh, the named guardians will have far too much to do to bother with most people. If that's what you think I suggest you read the first of the documents that peggy linked to. I didn't have any health visitor involvement with my third child as I felt none was needed and I didn't like the health visitor (nosy patronising cow who had nothing sensible to say). I suspect that under the new legislation refusing involvement won't be an option, or if you do it will be an automatic referral to social services.

The whole thing is an unwarranted interference in the lives of the majority of parents. By all means target resources at those who clearly need help and guidance but leave the rest of us alone.

You do have a right to private life, but if you're abusing or neglecting your child(ren) their right not to be abused trumps yours.

In the event you refuse HV engagement, it might well result in a referral to social services. But if you're looking after your dc properly, it won't go any further.

The problem with that Hirples is that only the most obvious cases of neglect or abuse will be picked up by a health visitor visiting occasionally. I very much doubt that any children will be saved from abuse by this overbearing legislation.

The implication from the Scottish control freakery government appears to be that all parents are suspected of abusing or neglecting their children. A sort of guilty until proven innocent approach.

I find the whole thing very alarming.

Hirples the guidelines don't speak about abuse or neglect, it speaks about wellbeing - wellbeing is defined as your child being happy. How are the govt. going to ensure your child is happy?

If you don't engage there should be no reason for people to be referred most of the time - that's overkill and is and aggressive stance - all its going to do is wind people up. What are the govt. going to do if no one engages - refer them all? Where will the resource come to manage that? What about the people who genuinely need help but can't get it because the agencies are then overworked?

When you say this scheme Has been running and works well what do you mean?

Can you tell me what the criteria was for success and how that was measured? How many people were involved? was involvement mandatory? How many people did the scheme help? He many didn't like it? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Sorry it's not enough to say it's been running since x date and it works well - that means absolutely nothing!

Yes, AnthonyBlanche, only the most obvious signs of abuse will be picked up by a HV visiting from time to time. Which it's why it's important that the HV knows, maybe via anonymous calls from neighbours made to 101 or the duty social worker, there may be an issue s/he should be particularly aware of. That's the whole point of the Named Guardian stuff, one person gets all of the information and can put it together.

If you are relying on anonymous calls as a way of discovering child abuse I don't see why you need a named person. My understanding is that I could phone the police or social work to report that a neighbour is beating their children. It is then up to those agencies to follow my report up. Don't see why you would need a HV to do so?

Or perhaps the HV / named person is needed so that anyone can report anyone else for failing to ensure the "wellbeing" of their children. As wellbeing is not defined within the legislation presumably reports can be made on a subjective basis?