BBC decision to stop airing the daily briefings

[Srictlybakeoff]

Just as things start to get more worrying again, the BBC have decided to stop showing the First Ministers daily briefings. There is an implication that the decision is political. It seems o me to be a very biased move.

I can't help but keep coming back to the judges ruling on the named person scheme:

“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.”

I wonder what they meant?

The big problem with this SNP 'totalitarian regime' nonsense, is that totalitarian regimes do not persist in countries with free and open democratic elections. Not only that, but by definition, it is utterly impossible for any Scottish Government to be 'totalitarian' by dint of the fact they do not have full and unfettered control of Scotland at every governmental level. Even if we play along with this nonsense for a moment that the SNP is hellbent on having everyone in Scotland obey them without question, what is to stop individuals removing them from government, local councils continuing to govern as they see fit at local levels, or indeed, opposition parties refusing to support SNP motions and rendering it impossible for them to actually govern? Nothing.

It's a meaningless, hyperbolic soundbite regurgitated by people bitter at the fact that the SNP don't represent their own personal politics, and angry that the Scots electorate appear to be broadly supportive of SNP governance.

Nobody gets the government they prefer every single time. The way to change that is to elect different politicians. Throwing tantrums and making banal assertions about 'Totalitarianism' is infantile and makes it difficult to take anything else that might be forthcoming seriously.

The nonsense about Independence for the Shetlands, DPR of Scotland, Totalitarianism etc just shows that it's finally dawning on unionists that the end is nigh. It truly is panic stations stuff.

Hardly, I clicked on a link to the Edinburgh Book Festival to an author whose book I am currently reading.
I did not expect the First Minister of Scotland to be interviewing her during the coronavirus pandemic.

I have not watched a single briefing by Nicola Sturgeon because I choose not to but many of my relatives punctuate their day by tuning in to it.
It’s become habitual which I don’t think is a good thing.
When I grew up in Scotland, prior to the dominance of the SNP and the Curriculum for Excellence, I was taught HOW to think, not what to think.

Right, so the 'no escaping the woman' is just hyperbolic nonsense then, as was obvious all along.

It wasn't me that said it. For the hard if thinking, it wasn't saying that There was a totalitarian regime, it was saying that the behaviour displayed in seeking to overly influence children was reminiscent of one. Do you think countries with totalitarian regimes don't have elections?

I can’t think of another politician who has the same exposure as NS.
Even if it was my favourite politician/ someone I voted for I would still be of the view that it’s too much.

It’s not healthy in a democracy and more importantly to me, the daily briefings have done nothing positive for the mental health of my relatives who seem very dependent on tuning in every day.
As I said before, it’s become habitual.

I would rather they were doing something more enjoyable while they can rather than listening to more doom and gloom.
Sometimes, it’s good to switch off.

Which leads me to the fact that I just wanted to enjoy hearing a Booker Prize winning novelist Bernadine Evaristo talking about Girl, Woman, Other without NS sticking her oar in.

NS has a paid job which is to be First Minister of Scotland.
There are many others ( non politicians) who would have done a far better job of interviewing Evaristo.

There’s such a thing as over exposure.
Something to which NS and her advisors seem oblivious.

How on earth could children be over influenced by the named person scheme- whatever interventions by agencies a child has now would still be the same under the scheme. There's no, right under this scheme a named person can now do... x y,z they couldn't before. . It just meant that children wouldn't fall through the cracks between the agencies and school.saying well they have social work involved so we don't need to chase up.as they said they were moving to a different city but social work not realising this and thinking well they're still at school so we've closed our case ( omitting to tell the school in error which has happened) and no one kniws where the child is and bluntly, we've had cases of chimdren tortured and killed because of this.
We review these cases every year. Children are abused and killed in Scotland.

Of course families bring up their children in their own way. Most children it'd just be the child protection officer at a school ( who doesn't do anything extra in their interaction with the children) but for the poor souls who are neglected / abused a whole host of agencies are used to deal with that. Again, the named person means one person's responsible instead of , as has happened at times, communication breaks down and children are abused and killed as no one is taking responsibility for that one soul. It wouldn't be perfect but if a judge did say that then he really shouldn't be in his position.

WaxOn I've just read it again and the quote is saying having a named person would indoctrine children in their leaders view of the world.. so you take it that he meant the FM for leader?!
What the actual f. Was the judge on drugs?! Child Protection Officers, Social Workers - they're not friends with the FM or have any interaction with her?!
You feel this is a normal statement he made?! How on earth could social workers etc indoctrinate children? Or a HT ( in their role of Child Protection Officer- each school has one!) It really makes 0 sense what the judge said. They're not all SNP voters I mean I don't know what you or he are implying here... have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Nicola Sturgeon is known to be a reader and often presents an event at the Book Festival. Ruth Davidson as well, not sure if she did this year as I didn't attend much. Gordon Brown did as well. Hard to imagine Boris Johnson doing that, but I don't see him as the type to present something like that. Ruth Davidson is a bit of a media darling and I think has a radio show now should I complain about that?

Complain about Ruth Davidson if you feel strongly about it but last time I checked she wasn’t First Minister of Scotland in the midst of a pandemic.

I think there are many people with a better interview technique than NS, Gordon Brown or Ruth Davidson when it comes to these kind of events.
I would prefer the emphasis of the Edinburgh Book Festival to be on the authors and literature rather than politicians of any description who feel the need to get in on the act.

But if my criticism of NS participating in this event irks you so much, you do rather neatly demonstrate my point that no one is allowed to criticise the First Minister for any reason whatsoever.
And that is a problem.

Actually I don't feel strongly about it I was just making the point that other politicians present at the book festival. I thought NS was ok at it. I usually don't go to events about fiction so it was the first time I'd seen her do it.

I have actually criticised NS quite a lot myself in the past, and a lot of people here do as well so not sure why you seem to think it's not allowed.

Back to the briefing I do think there's value having the same person leading it with changes in the other presenters based on the issues to be covered. It's a shame some people let their political views keep them away from valuable information.

Just read that the BBC will have Labour and Tory pundits analysing the Public Health Up- dates.
So, the BBC intend to politicise a non-political daily briefing by introducing politics, after political parties complain that the non-political briefing is too political.
You couldn't make it up!

Actually that seems fair.

If they cannot (or will not) remove the singular party dominating the podium then the obvious solution is to allow the opposing parties equal airtime.

Yes you do have the wrong end of the stick...and children in the pilot did fall between the cracks in some of the worst cases in Scotland.

The point is that you are overly giving power in how children are raised into the hands of someone who is not their parent, regardless of whether that power is required or wanted. It was most certainly open to abuse in all sorts of ways.

*Actually that seems fair.

If they cannot (or will not) remove the singular party dominating the podium then the obvious solution is to allow the opposing parties equal airtime.*

Completely agree with this, it seems like a reasonable compromise. Those that tune in purely for the statistics etc can still get it, but it’s not one party controlling the narrative. This way when the FM is making her ‘non-political’ comments about Westminster or how Scotland is doing better than England, or making ‘non-political’ policy announcements, oppositions parties can give their view too. I don’t see why anyone would object, unless they had a vested interest in the SNP perspective being the only one presented.

WaxOn what power would, for example, a HT have ( under named person scheme) that they don't have now? How on earth would they be raising other people's children? All what, 500 in a school?

Actually who cares.. it's binned anyway. Just wasn't at all what you're saying that's all.

Well exactly, how can they possibly be responsible for 500 DC given that they are not in school 52 weeks a year but that's another problem.

The issue is that you are giving control to a single person who could make all sorts of spurious allegations or act on those and I believe had powers to make decisions and keep information from parents etc etc. can't really remember the ins and outs any more.

Any news on the amount of under 45s requiring acute care in hospital from covid?

Just wasn't at all what you're saying that's all.

Yep because it was just me that had an issue with it and not parents and other bodies and supreme judges.... and I repeat, those are the words published in the judgement, not just pulled out my arse or given in the gutter press.