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

Apologies in advance for DM link (and I'm sure many won't want to click on it) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3467642/Fury-Orwellian-psychological-tests-schoolchildren-sees-interrogated-parents-nurture-enough.html

The way the state guardian scheme will operate is very frightening. I am going to tell my children not to cooperate in filling in any such questionnaires.

Do you have another source for that?

No I don't itsall. However I have no reason to believe it's not true (apart from the fact that it's in the DM of course!).

Time will tell whether supporters of the named person scheme were right and that no state intrusion will be involved. Personally I think it is only a matter of time before the Orwellian nature of the scheme is picked up on by the majority of Scottish parents. Hopefully there will be a mass revolt.

Here www.scotsman.com/news/politics/watchdog-voices-fresh-concerns-over-named-person-scheme-1-4039179 is more media criticism of the named person scheme. This article addresses a different point but is equally worrying.

The fact that so many people are now speaking out is heartening.

However I have no reason to believe it's not true (apart from the fact that it's in the DM of course!).

I think the fact it is the DM is an exceptionally good reason to believe it's not true I suspect their may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it is hard to tell without another source.

This article addresses a different point but is equally worrying.

I agree with that. The possible implications of the scheme if mistakes are made by the named person are pretty serious - it needs a really roubust and independent complaints scheme to be able to deal with issues quickly and fairly.

here is a copy of a questionnaire girfecinlanarkshire.co.uk/girfec-resources/Item%2016%20Core%20components/Item%2016g%20What%20I%20Think%20Tool.pdf

its invasive to ask children these questions a - there is no need for all these questions to be asked and answers logged - I don't believe the trial done in Highlands and Islands is remotely like what is now being proposed. I believe the what I think tool will make children think more about their situation and will harm them more - children don't have the maturity to deal with these questions and the consequences of their answers.

I wonder what will happen when children and adults lie in their answers - who will be accountable? Why would any sane adult answer any of these questions? Sorry but as an adult and individual this scheme is not something i am prepared to participate in.

I agree peggy no sane adult would answer those questions. The fact that our children are going to be asked and the answers logged in a database is very frightening. I can just imagine the answers my children would give if they were in a strop about something like their parents refusing to buy them junk food. SS will no doubt be at my door accusing me and DH of child abuse.

Anthony the questions remind me of the questions asked when on a course at work and you we're given these to make you try and see where your behaviour fits into your organisational structure and what you need to improve on to move up a management chain or some other wank reasoning and you are made to go into these wank role play scenarios to practice what some wank trainer has suggested you improve on.

You always come away from these things thinking what a waste of my time, now back in the real world I can get back to my day job.

One of those articles above says about 11 compulsory visits. They are going to visit every family 11 times or am I reading it wrong?

I don't think you're reading it wrong stressed . As someone who had no health visitor involvement for my third child I do wonder how that would work now - presumably not allowed. The SNP have tried to dress up the whole scheme as not being compulsory, but if you read the legislation it is clear that it absolutely is compulsory - there's no way for parents to opt out. People of Scotland, welcome to state interference in every aspect of how you raise your children

peggy your analogy made me smile, I know exactly the kind of training course you mean!

This really has got disaster written all over. Why are the SNP obsessed with controlling every single minutiae is Scotland?

Good question Queen. It does seem to be their modus operandi. Perhaps their goal is to ensure that no Scottish citizen deviates from the path the SNP would like us all to follow.

looks like the UK Supreme Court have agreed to hear an intervention in the case next week meaning judges think it could provide new helpful information, hearing is next Tuesday or Wednesday

www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320248.Charity_warns__named_persons__law_may_breach_children_s_rights_to_privacy/

This morning proceedings will begin at the UK Supreme Court in London in the continued fight to oppose the Scottish Government's Named Person legislation.

Last year judges in Scotland’s highest court ruled that the legislation did not conflict with human rights or data protection laws.

But groups and individuals involved in the NO2NP campaign appealed the decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The hearing will last two days and be heard by five judges.

You can watch the hearing live from 10:30am on the Supreme Court website www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-02.html

The no2np Twitter feed provides a useful summary of points raised so far

I watched a bit of the court coverage nearer the end of the day and it was quite interesting. The QC defending the action couldnt answer some of the questions put to him by the judges and they seemed a little annoyed with this and said tomorrow he needs to give them clear guidance on the points they raised. The judges also pointed out the document they had, which is a draft, tells them the new law will inevitably be incompatible with the human rights act section 8 due to the nature of the new legislation.

I was also surprised to hear that a GP would be able to tell a named person medical information about a child that he wouldn't be allowed to tell a parent - when speaking to a named person the GP would not be bound by the normal confidentiality clause.

http://www.aberlour.org.uk/news/946childrensscharitiesurgeesupremecourttthrowouttnamedpersonn_appeals

Lots of children's charities are urging this appeal to be thrown out... Thought this might be of interest to some of you. I still believe that there is a lot of scaremongering going on around this issue, and it would appear that many organisations who work closely with vulnerable young people are saying the same.

Thanks for that link superjaggy. A wide range of respected charities, plus Social Work and the Royal College of Nursing, calling for the appeal to be thrown out.

superjaggy I believe the information in that link is wrong. I do not believe parents are calling out for this legislation - in fact the data on the link is completely different to a comres poll carried out at the beginning of march where 2030 people were polled - nearly 60% of people think it is wrong that the govt are to assign a state named guardian to each child, nearly 65% think the legislation is an unacceptable intrusion into family life whereas only 1 in 5 agreed is was welcome. 71% of parents surveyed thought it better to focus on children which do need help instead of monitoring all children.

The link also doesn't state the NP will HAVE to carry out certain duties like carry out assessments to ascertain the level of the childs wellbeing (this was brought up in court but the defending QC couldn't answer the question and it was one point that the judges asked the QC to clarify) the QC admitted they do have a duty to carry out assessments but there is nothing in the draft documentation about it hence the reason the judges asked for clarification.

of course these organisations will want the legislation to go ahead - I wonder how many will benefit from the £61million being spent on it... me cynical?

prettybird and Jaggy there are also quite a few very respected organisations calling for the named person legislation to be scrapped, or at the very least amended. Clan Child Law has intervened in the Supreme Court proceedings as they are one organisation who are opposed.

Thats £61 million so far, there will be plenty more where thats concerned. Still who needs doctors, teachers, nurses or police when we can have state guardians.

Peggy, I think it's incredibly cynical to say that these charities will benefit from the legislation! They exist to provide support to children, not to sit around chatting about opportunities to get more funding or score political points. The fact that they are speaking out in support of NP speaks volumes.

Also I know many people who live in Highland, where the legislation emerged from, who work with young people. They seem entirely happy with it too.

superjaggy there is also lots of instances where people in the highlands don't like the legislation being forced upon them.

its not cynical to suggest they will benefit from the legislation - i know quite a few people who work within several different charities who work with children and yes they do talk about funding and where its coming from and how they can secure more to continue their work. At least 2 of these people are getting paid up to 70-80k a year, drive about in very nice company cars, fly up and down the country week in/week out and its all funded - do you think they want to give up these positions? they boast they get to see their families, go to the theatre, stay in nice hotels etc. and its all paid for...

Superjaggy have you read the state guardian legislation? I have and have to say it is terrifying. Despite what the Scottish govt have said, it is not the case that the whole scheme is voluntary or that families don't have to have anything to do with the child's named person. It is not only a monumental waste of money, it also gives the state absolute power over every child and that child's family.