Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Scotsnet

Welcome to Scotsnet - discuss all aspects of life in Scotland, including relocating, schools and local areas.

named person - ruled unlawful

182 replies

peggyundercrackers · 28/07/2016 10:09

don't know if anyone else was watching the supreme court ruling this morning but they have ruled the named person scheme unlawful. I am glad the court had sense to rule this sham unlawful. I am disappointed that previous courts didn't do more to stop this nonsense.

Details of the ruling can be found www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html

OP posts:
CuboidalSlipshoddy · 28/07/2016 16:32

Similar legislation was passed under the Blair Govt 'every child matters'

Except that the part of the Children's Act 2004 which most resembles the Named Person scheme (and even then was substantially less invasive) was scrapped.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint and particularly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContactPoint#Criticism

There has not been a child welfare apocalypse as a result.

Vipermisnomer · 28/07/2016 17:07

and anyone working with children already has a legal duty of care to report concerns!

ASAS · 28/07/2016 17:10

Took the words out my mouth Mint Choc :)

SantanaLopez · 28/07/2016 17:32

Dang MintChoc got there first Grin

Superjaggy · 28/07/2016 18:52

OOAOML said: Based on personal experience I genuinely worry this will end up as another tick box exercise. I'd like some reassurance on the effectiveness of it, none of which I'm seeing in any of the publicity about it.

I couldn't agree more. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled and the Scottish Govt has stated that it will make the changes necessary, Councils and community partnerships can get back to focussing on developing their systems and telling people how the system will work, rather than batting off criticism from people who are hell bent on insisting that the scheme is sinister etc. It's about supporting families and in particular, young people.

OOAOML · 28/07/2016 19:20

There should be a lot more information being given to parents. And there does need to be reassurance about genuine personality clashes between parents and named person, questions like the one Roses raised about colleagues of teachers being named persons etc.

Have other areas in the trial been communicated with? Wondering if it is just Edinburgh Council being a bit rubbish again.

QuiteLikely5 · 28/07/2016 19:26

So you disagree that if you have a worry about your child that agencies now have a duty to help you?

What on earth is wrong with that?

Yes I know ECM was scrapped by the Tories the same week they were elected!

Also everything is voluntary with named person, if you don't want help then it's fine!

QuiteLikely5 · 28/07/2016 19:35

Viper child protection concerns are different from the shanarri indicators.

Named person is all about helping s child being the best they can be.

It's not an interference. it's an option

MintChocAddict · 28/07/2016 19:42

Thanks for clarifying John 😉

BeJayKayven · 28/07/2016 19:48

Im delighted that this is at least being looked at again. Better it should be scrapped. The pilot in Fife went sooo well after all. 😕

BeJayKayven · 28/07/2016 19:49

Posted too soon....

I was going to say it's also indicative of the kind of country we now live in that people have to take their government to court to make them listen!

MintChocAddict · 28/07/2016 19:50

Apologies for childish responses quitelikely Blush

On a more serious note if SG would stop assuming that its citizens are thoroughly incapable and start properly funding initiatives that reach the people who really need it then I might have a bit more respect. So much waste of money on pointless schemes to be rolled out to everyone no matter their level of need is shameful and leads to services being diluted and ineffective.

It's a Government that's failing the most needy and so many refuse to see it. Depressing!

DailyMailEthicalFail · 28/07/2016 21:22

Yy, Viper

THIS is a crucial part of the ruling:

"Individual differences are the product of the interplay between the individual person and his upbringing and environment. Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way. "

Unless there is evidence of abuse then families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.

And NP IS now voluntary ie you can opt out without penalty.

The whole NP scheme was a data-grabbing window dressing exercise to make professionals LESS not more accountable.

ASAS · 28/07/2016 22:23

Mint you are on fire!

Vipermisnomer · 28/07/2016 22:55

Humanity is diversity,

SHANARRI is far too vague and open to interpretation. Look at any parenting topic; breast or bottle - how long for?, home school/state/private?, screen time?, behaviour expectation and consequences etc. all are controversial because there is no single right answer for all.

How could an enforced scheme using untrained risk assessors to judge a family without even consulting them ever work in any sane society?

It is good to educate and have goals for better living. It is legislative madness to hand such a level of generalised power to those with no vested interest in the child. At best this would be a box ticking red tape exercise using up valuable time, at worst a system wide open to abuse by those who need to cut corners or have a difference of opinion or have ill intent.

Multi disciplinary working rarely gets every fact right, things get misinterpreted or lost in translation or sometimes just completely wrong. That is not speculation, just logistics - tell 20 people the same story and all will write it down or repeat it slightly differently. In most cases the people best placed to spot such errors and keep everyone right are the parents because they are most invested in the situation. To exclude them from processes involving their child is wrong. As a matter of course, when it comes to our children, all parents should be in the loop, invited to every meeting, copied in on every letter etc. Dividing families as a matter of course is wrong.

HelenF35 · 28/07/2016 23:08

I'm not opposed to the premise behind the named person scheme. I did, however have great concerns about the nature, type and quantities of data that were going to be shared. Collection and storage of data that looked like it would be of little benefit worried me as I felt it would dilute the amount of time various professionals could spend looking at important safeguarding issues. As the judgement says certain things should be free for the parent to decide. I am very glad this intrusive and overbearing legislation is going to be amended before implementation.

MintChocAddict · 28/07/2016 23:32

Why thank you ASAS Wink

Funnily enough I grew up feeling included, safe, nurtured, healthy etc etc without any questionnaires, shanarri indicators, funky songs Hmm or by being microcchipped by the Government The quote from the judgement about totalitarian regimes is very telling.

I was fortunate enough to have had loving, involved parents who did their job well just like many hundreds of thousands do today. They probably did things differently from the family across the road and differently again from the parents round the corner, but that's what makes me me, and you you.

Those who aren't as lucky as I was, and where genuine child protection concerns exist do of course require the state to step in. What is really required though in order to make a difference is properly funded social and health workers with realistic manageable caseloads to concentrate their efforts on them.

What they absolutely don't need is already overworked, stressed individuals dealing with unnecessary referrals and paperwork generated by at best well meaning and at worst interfering named persons.

I've come across more than a few of the latter in my time (you know the type) and the thought of them as possible named persons makes me shudder.

Stop spending public money on interfering campaigns - 'in this house we call peas green footballs' anyone? 'Read with your child' - no shit Sherlock.

Studies have shown (article in the Herald a few months back in case anyone asks me to evidence it) that health promotion campaigns make little difference. They predominately reach those who would have done it anyway. The inequalities remain.

Don't target the masses. We're mostly fine thanks. Concentrate time, money and effort on those who really need the support. That's how you will close gaps in poverty, attainment, health etc etc that continue to widen in Scotland.

Superjaggy · 29/07/2016 08:33

http://www.highland.gov.uk/news/article/9597/namedpersonnruling?utmsource

In Highland the NP service has been running for 10 years or more... It sounds like lots of councils could learn something from the way things are done there, as staff and indeed families in Highland seem very happy with the service overall.

DailyMailEthicalFail · 29/07/2016 08:41

Superjaggy

perhaps the Highlands Council should be honest about the case of Dayna Dickson Boath - a teacher who was one of the first NP's in the Highlands who was stuck off in January for sharing fantasies of child abuse?

DailyMailEthicalFail · 29/07/2016 08:43

Based in Elgin.
Responsible, as a NP, for over 200 children.
Struck off as a teacher for
Electronic sharing of discussions of abuse.

This person had more power, under the Legislation, than parents of those kids.

BeJayKayven · 29/07/2016 09:41

Reading and listening to the media this morning - this is becoming a "we won" naw "we won" argument and moving away from the actual point of whether it is for for purpose or not. 😞

DailyMailEthicalFail · 29/07/2016 10:10

BeJay Yy, like the IndyRef.

Divisive, expensive, poorly presented and understood.

No wonder the electorate are increasingly disenchanted with those who increasingly interfere in our lives.

trixymalixy · 29/07/2016 10:25

"Totalitarian regime"

Strong words from that judge. I wonder how many will heed them.

I'm glad a brake has been applied to this ill thought out piece of legislation.

BeJayKayven · 29/07/2016 10:28

daily if I had a 'like' button I would click it on your posts.

OOAOML · 29/07/2016 11:27

I think a big problem here is that this has become a party political issue - and that's stopping proper scrutiny of arguments on all sides. It also backed the government into a corner defending this - a redrafting and better information for the public should be good things. I have no problem with headteachers/guidance teachers sharing information and co-ordinating support, that's what they should be doing. I would want to know that there are safeguards on the data and I would like the council to have explained to me that there was someone who could help us with other agencies (although considering we sat in meetings with the head teacher discussing the lack of contact from OT I'm also a bit annoyed she didn't say anything).

A lot of concerns have been raised about how the wellbeing indicators will be measured and what 'power' the named person will have - with such a wide-ranging scheme there should be a lot more cascading of information. Thinking back to CfE, there were a lot of information events - not everyone went, but there was a real effort to communicate.

I'd also want to know there was a proper process in place for confidentiality/conflict of interests and a route for escalating concerns about a named person - my son has had at least one teacher who wrote off his ASD as 'just being naughty' and if someone like that was his named person I'd want to know I could appeal against it because I don't think it would be in his interests.