named person - ruled unlawful

[peggyundercrackers]

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

www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alistair-bonnington-one-party-state-is-an-enemy-of-democracy-1-4183472

The scotsman is all over named persons today, shame they didn't make such a fuss when it was proposed and stop the whole thing then! This article is being quoted a lot, hadn't read it before and it makes a very grim point.

Will the SNP lose popularity for passing illegal legislation? Will there be any backlash over this? Is it just going to be swept under the carpet and ignored once the edits are in?

The fact the Scotsman article uses the term one-party state shows that author is very ill-informed.

BeJay - I am concerned that lots of people are buying the line 'if it just saves one child...'.

Well it didn't save the lad in Fife recently who was known to SS and had a NP I understand?

It is the 'well - being indicators' that are so ridiculous.

YES, lets have 1 accountable person for cases of abuse. Train them, give them achievable workloads, and fund it all so they have a chance.

But this is a totally different thing to 'well being indicators' for ALL children.
ALL children to have a NP who can, in theory, be anyone other than their parent.
The NPs are not trained or supported (or vetted, ie Dayna is an example)
the 'contact number' in the holidays is a generic email address - so not a 'named person' at all. I know one atm who is on a 6 week safari - who is looking after his 'children' when he is the other side of the world? it's nonsense on stilts.

Viper yes the Scotsman has been slow on this I think.
Yes, there will be a lot of time and money put into propping up bad legislation and it will be swept under the carpet.

Time and money that could be spent on children who need it.

Daily Elgin is not in Highland, it's in Moray. And the teacher you referred to was not a named person, she was a teacher. Not all teachers are NPs, far from it. And, the NP service was not in place at the time these crimes were committed.

So I think this case is completely irrelevant to whether there should be a NP service in Scotland.

Superjaggy apologies for the geography!

Here is more info - which I still think is highly relevant:

A teacher appointed one of Scotland’s first “state guardians” faces a lifetime ban from working with children.

Dayna Dickson-Boath was today struck off the teaching register for sharing sick fantasies about abusing youngsters.

Scotland’s teaching watchdog also recommended that Dickson-Boath be placed on a list of persons unfit to work with children in any capacity.

Only 14 months ago the guidance teacher was appointed Named Person for 200 secondary pupils under the Scottish Government’s controversial scheme to provide every child under 18 with a “state guardian”.

Dickson-Boath, who taught most recently in Elgin, Moray, consented today to be struck off by the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS).

She accepted a charge that, between 8 August 2014 and 10 September 2014, she “did send, by means of a public electronic communications network, messages to another person that were grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, in that you did converse regarding the sexual abuse of children.”

The notice added that she was convicted of the offence on 26 August 2016 at Elgin Sheriff Court.

Hugh Paton, convenor of the panel, said: “The panel agrees that the Registrant should be removed from the register in view of the facts admitted.

“The panel has also decided that it is appropriate that the Registrant’s name is referred to Scottish Ministers for consideration in connection with inclusion on the list of those barred from working with children and vulnerable young adults.”

If the Scottish Government agrees to their recommendation, it means that Dickson-Boath will be prohibited from working with children for the rest of her life.

The offences were committed while she was an additional support teacher at Forres Academy, Moray.

Despite her criminal behaviour, she was promoted to acting Principal Guidance Teacher at Elgin High School.

Then in November 2014 she was appointed a Named Person, a position which gave her access to pupils’ private data and required her to judge how well they were being raised at home.

so, if you read to the bottom, my point is:

She was made a Named Person after she was already sending abusive material.

Clearly very concerning.

Thanks for posting that, Daily, could I please have the source? I happen to know that there are several inaccuracies in the report.

Notwithstanding that, there was no NP service in place in Moray at that time, at least in terms of the NP legislation that's being discussed here. There's no doubt huge mistakes were made by the employer, I am not disputing that. But the Supreme Court judgement on NP was nothing to do with how NPs are screened or employed or monitored etc.

I accept that there are issues with the NP legislation, but this case doesn't illustrate any of them.

Liam Fee, the toddler murdered by his mother and her civil partner in Fife, did not have an NP in terms of the legislation. And the words "totalitarian regime" were not applied by the judges to the Scottish government.

No legislation is ever going to be perfect. Child abusers will continue to be employed in positions of responsibility, because they don't carry brands on their foreheads from the first time they abuse, and they don't put "raping children" in the "Interests and hobbies" section on their CV.

Once the necessary changes have been made, the NP programme will roll out. What "backlash" or "sweeping under the carpet" will be required?

lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hated-named-persons-scheme-blasted-as.html

Andrew Tickell being brilliant on the topic.

Yes, I should have acknowledged source.

here it is:

Press and Journal, Jan 2016, Martin Little.

Now can you tell me what the inaccuracies are please?


Not sure if this will work, but this is a screenshot from the Scotsman.

The P&J article (and almost every other report still available on the Internet) insinuates that the crimes were committed whilst the person was a NP, this is not the case. Even if the legislation had been in place at that time, it wouldn't have prevented the crimes as that is not its purpose.

Again, I'm not defending the crimes she committed for one second. I'm simply saying that the case is irrelevant to the current NP debate. To be using it as an example (and it appears to be the only example being used by many people) undermines one of the arguments against the legislation, IMO.

The offences were committed while she was an additional support teacher at Forres Academy, Moray.

So the link didn't work. Here's a quote from the text instead.

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

It's fairly irrelevant whether Liam Fee had a NP or not TBH.

That isn't the sort of case that it's set up for, they were already identified and had involvement.

The whole, well it didn't help that child or we should concentrate on children who need help arguments are red herrings.

This legislation is to identify and monitor children that are missed by the current system, ones that aren't identified and supported already.

There are children who live for years with abuse and or neglect and nothing changes for them because nothing is ever properly flagged up until a huge issue arises.

Those are the children this is for.

That's the children it's aimed at but it will catch others who don't need it in the wide net of badly written legislation.

The offences were committed while she was an additional support teacher at Forres Academy, Moray.

So that's OK, then: nothing to worry about.

So that's OK, then: nothing to worry about.

No-ones saying that, just that it does not show the entire scheme is wrong.

That is like saying that because a doctor was struck off for sexually assaulting patients, the NHS shoukd be dissolved.

"That's the children it's aimed at but it will catch others who don't need it in the wide net of badly written legislation."

And?...

It's a bit of monitoring not removal of children from their homes...

No, it's not 'a bit of monitoring' it is telling children that their parents are not the most important adults in their lives and the first ones (not the only ones but the first ones) to go to in times of worry (the 'Head Gardener' analogy).

It is a list of 200 'well-being' indicators which include choosing tv programmes and wallpaper.

And yes it does increase the chance of children being removed from their homes (or families breaking up from the stress of the threat of) when there is no justification for it other than the opinion of an untrained and unaccountable 'Named Person'.

Moreover, the fact that there is, currently, NO opt out and NO complaints procedure!

That is like saying that because a doctor was struck off for sexually assaulting patients, the NHS shoukd be dissolved.

Doctors do get struck off, often because parents complain about treatment. You can be struck off for behaviour which is not criminal and does not result in prosecution.

What's the complaints procedure for the named persons scheme? If someone abuses their authority, what recourse do parents have?

If the scottish government genuinely want to help the children of this country they should increase resources for social services, education and the special needs community support services. Reduce class sizes, increase social work, teacher and additonal support numbers. Support charitable schemes, extra curriculars and funding.

All of these have been cut and the NP legislation just takes more from those services as well as making it harder for parents and communities to stand up for their children. People are feeding their families from food banks and struggling to home school children who cannot manage mainstream without additional support ffs and the money that is being spent on this...

"No, it's not 'a bit of monitoring' it is telling children that their parents are not the most important adults in their lives and the first ones (not the only ones but the first ones) to go to in times of worry (the 'Head Gardener' analogy).

It is a list of 200 'well-being' indicators which include choosing tv programmes and wallpaper."

Again, and?...

Really? That's what you're bothered about?

Oh yes, big issues indeed.

"untrained and unaccountable 'Named Person'. "

Oh yes, those totally untrained and unnacountable health care professionals and promoted teachers.

viper smaller class sizes? Oh aye, I remember that promise for our P1 and P2s, wonder what happened to that?

Doctors do get struck off, often because parents complain about treatment. You can be struck off for behaviour which is not criminal and does not result in prosecution.

Yes, that's what I said. The point is that we don't then decide the NHS must be a really silly idea.

What's the complaints procedure for the named persons scheme?

www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/01/6965/4

That consultation document says there's going to be a complaints procedure. Some time.

And each page is headed "SG RESPONSE TO CONSULTAITON ON COMPLAINTS" because nothing says "we take this seriously" like not bothering to employ civil servants who can spell.