Named Person Act - Page 4 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Named Person Act


Recommended Posts

IMO this is a very dangerous piece of legislation that'll lead to overworked public sector workers being forced to take on additional (and very important) work that they have no scope to do effectively. They'll then be made a scapegoat if they fail or overlook something and a child falls in to abuse. 

Thats before we even get in to the information sharing and "snooping" aspect of it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From what I can see, the Supreme Court largely supported the aims of the Act but sent it back for further work. The hyperbole since though is absolutely pathetic. The spew-inducing irony of the Tories jumping in all guns blazing because of issues with the ECHR - something their party wants to remove us from - is a new level of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness. Closely followed by the Press and Journal quoting wildly out of context.

Very disappointing to see Scunnered reaching new levels of desperation as well - in danger of becoming a Red-Alan with his hatred of the SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Parklife said:

IMO this is a very dangerous piece of legislation that'll lead to overworked public sector workers being forced to take on additional (and very important) work that they have no scope to do effectively. They'll then be made a scapegoat if they fail or overlook something and a child falls in to abuse. 

Thats before we even get in to the information sharing and "snooping" aspect of it all. 

I don't disagree with you, but the fact is that this legislation was supported strongly (may be even suggested ?) by all Scotland's child protection agencies, and the police.

There is merit in the principle of it, of that there's no doubt. But I believe it was always destined to fail.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

FFS I was hoping labour die. Did you actually think I meant him. Oh well.

I was just logging off to take my gran out for some Italian Coffee (I'm in the process of conceding those coffee machines might be pretty good)

" You are the poster boy for everything that makes labour the basket case party of the decade and who knows you may actually die. I hope so."

the "you" was what made me think what I did.

Let's be honest there shouldn't be any political parties it creates split loyalties off the back and is open for nepotism etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rossy said:

Any sense of reality seems to have completely gone out of the window in Scottish politics.

It seems that you're either pro-SNP, or anti-SNP, and every single issue is seen through that prism.

Personally, I think this was a poor piece of legislation that was destined for failure from the beginning. Or at the very least, was set up to be challenged.

Some of the hate that's already being spat out on forums though......simply because some people are delighted that the SNP are seen to be 'losing'......is beyond the pale.

FFS, they're only a political party. They haven't raped anyone's daughter or committed mass murder. They are a democratic party that has been (overwhelmingly) voted in and is making decisions...for right or for wrong....according to what they deem best for Scotland.

The animosity towards them by some people is bordering on pure, dead mentalness.

 

25 years ago I lived in Dublin for a while.  I always remember a friend of mine - a keen student of history - tell me that "Every single club or association down in Ireland to a knitting circle is destined to split over the 'National Question'".   

I've never forgotten that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, aaid said:

25 years ago I lived in Dublin for a while.  I always remember a friend of mine - a keen student of history - tell me that "Every single club or association down in Ireland to a knitting circle is destined to split over the 'National Question'".   

I've never forgotten that.

It's hilarious how exaggerated this divided nation stuff is.  Like if it's written about enough it must be true.

Meanwhile, the vast vast majority just get on with their lives.  You'd think every encounter with another person living here is shrouded in "is he/she one of us"...haha.  So far removed from reality it's laughable.

Okay, the questions get brought up very, very occasionally in same way any other political topic does but it's hardly at the forefront of everyday chat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Parklife said:

IMO this is a very dangerous piece of legislation that'll lead to overworked public sector workers being forced to take on additional (and very important) work that they have no scope to do effectively. They'll then be made a scapegoat if they fail or overlook something and a child falls in to abuse. 

Thats before we even get in to the information sharing and "snooping" aspect of it all. 

Couldn't have said it better myself, spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Auld_Reekie said:

From what I can see, the Supreme Court largely supported the aims of the Act but sent it back for further work.

Just finished reading it. It was called "defective" by the Judges, so not sure how it could be construed as largely supportive. It breached article 8 of ECHR and also was beyond the scope and power of the enacting government. The aims were largely supported the methods were deemed as breaching human right laws and there was no authority to do so anyway.

I have no idea what the Media is saying about it or how folk on twitter are spinning it to their own ends. I dont even see that nonsense. As i said this is a shit piece of legislation so i'm against it.

My interpretation which might be nonsense is it "failed" on article 8 and not exceeding the authority of our Parliament. It was a unanimous decision by the 5 Judges.

I also liked the judges spoke on the matter of totalitarian governments.

 “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to 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.”

and later on citing the Supreme court in the US.

"The  fundamental  theory  of  liberty  upon  which  all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature  of  the  state;  those  who  nurture  him  and  direct  his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mariokempes56 said:

Oh aye the US is a great example...

If you're using the persons nationality to judge the words rather than the contents then it doesn't really matter what you type.

 

4 minutes ago, Duncan Blackheart said:

Just an example of how weak opposition will often result in shoddy legislation. See the football act as well.

Would be good if there could be some sort of second chamber or independent scrutinising body. However, setting one up would require legislation made in its absence!

Ah the Rangers and Celtic excuse for doing shit in europe if the opposition was better so would we be. ;)

It's certainly a possibility, iron sharpens iron and all that. However loads of folk were pointing out it was invasive beforehand, it wasn't a case of folk waving it through so it never got challenged and was inherently weak because of that. That Christian group have been on about it since Feb 2014. Their first objection was " It is clear that this Bill breaches European rules through its attack on the family. ". Which is exactly what got it declared unlawful.

The SNP response said (again back in 2014) " A Scottish government spokesman said it was “confident” the legislation complied with the ECHR and families are not forced to accept the advice or help from the namedperson. "

So on the exact point of contention the stance has been the same for 30 months.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Auld_Reekie said:

From what I can see, the Supreme Court largely supported the aims of the Act but sent it back for further work. The hyperbole since though is absolutely pathetic. The spew-inducing irony of the Tories jumping in all guns blazing because of issues with the ECHR - something their party wants to remove us from - is a new level of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness. Closely followed by the Press and Journal quoting wildly out of context.

Very disappointing to see Scunnered reaching new levels of desperation as well - in danger of becoming a Red-Alan with his hatred of the SNP.

Haw now, that's unfair.

Scunnered is nothing like Alan.

Alan supports a decent football team, for a start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rossy said:

Any sense of reality seems to have completely gone out of the window in Scottish politics.

It seems that you're either pro-SNP, or anti-SNP, and every single issue is seen through that prism.

Personally, I think this was a poor piece of legislation that was destined for failure from the beginning. Or at the very least, was set up to be challenged.

Some of the hate that's already being spat out on forums though......simply because some people are delighted that the SNP are seen to be 'losing'......is beyond the pale.

FFS, they're only a political party. They haven't raped anyone's daughter or committed mass murder. They are a democratic party that has been (overwhelmingly) voted in and is making decisions...for right or for wrong....according to what they deem best for Scotland.

The animosity towards them by some people is bordering on pure, dead mentalness.

 

It's the political equivalent of the spiteful venom of a dying snake. They know that the game is virtually over and they will lash out at any tiny thing they can get close to. Why would folk, seemingly, get so worked up about a fairly minor piece of legislation that the majority of folk would never even notice? It's kinda similar to the reaction of folk who thought the SNP would face dire consequences, because the Forth Road Bridge was falling down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It's the political equivalent of the spiteful venom of a dying snake. They know that the game is virtually over and they will lash out at any tiny thing they can get close to. Why would folk, seemingly, get so worked up about a fairly minor piece of legislation that the majority of folk would never even notice? It's kinda similar to the reaction of folk who thought the SNP would face dire consequences, because the Forth Road Bridge was falling down.  

What minor piece of legislation?We talking about something else now? Cause the one i'm discussing  would require a change in the ECHR to make it compatible, it would require a change to the Scotland Act to be implementable.

I can't speak for any majority(outside my own circle) but the vast majority of folk I know with children have discussed it in depth. it will affect 1 million people off the bat, It also covers every single person born and bred in Scotland in perpetuity.

If you think it's minor then you've been misinformed of the contents of it.

That's without going into the fecked up metaphor about snakes "spitefully" biting folk cause they realise they are dying? I think you're anthropomorphising  the Serpentes.

As i say I don't know what nonsense the other parties are saying or why they're saying this. This is a shit piece of legislation though.

An interesting question is this, Since the Act has to be amended to comply, can it still fulfill it's intended function? If it can't then what use is it? If it can then why the need to try and circumvent Article 8 of the ECHR in the first place?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also i'm aware it's a lot easier to question the motives of either side rather than read the act and court judgement and make informed opinions.

They aren't equal positions though. Just a wee Public service announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This act has been blown well over proportion and some people aren't sure exactly why they are outraged. Granted it's not been explained properly so that is why some people believe that it's state control, snoopers etc who will be in control of your children and keeping an eye on what you're doing, ready to pounce and remove them at any minute. It's not that at all. 

A similar scheme has been going on in the Highlands, and other councils, for some time now. Some of the people here outraged by the act don't realise a similar scheme is already on the go here and affects them in no way whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Orraloon said:

It's the political equivalent of the spiteful venom of a dying snake. They know that the game is virtually over and they will lash out at any tiny thing they can get close to. Why would folk, seemingly, get so worked up about a fairly minor piece of legislation that the majority of folk would never even notice? It's kinda similar to the reaction of folk who thought the SNP would face dire consequences, because the Forth Road Bridge was falling down.  

What the hell is minor about the legislation? It's a pretty substantial landmark piece of legislation that will affect everyone born in this country from the moment it becomes active, anyone who is a parent or guardian and anyone who deals with children.

The aims of the legislation are benign in that it aims to protect children. An admirable intention. The actual implementation of it is horrendous though and therein lies the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iainmac1 said:

This act has been blown well over proportion and some people aren't sure exactly why they are outraged. Granted it's not been explained properly so that is why some people believe that it's state control, snoopers etc who will be in control of your children and keeping an eye on what you're doing, ready to pounce and remove them at any minute. It's not that at all. 

A similar scheme has been going on in the Highlands, and other councils, for some time now. Some of the people here outraged by the act don't realise a similar scheme is already on the go here and affects them in no way whatsoever. 

That seems sensible.

I doubt the vast majority of families will know any different or ever have any need for any sort of intervention anyway. If they do need help or an intervention of some sort, then surely it's a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iainmac1 said:

This act has been blown well over proportion and some people aren't sure exactly why they are outraged. Granted it's not been explained properly so that is why some people believe that it's state control, snoopers etc who will be in control of your children and keeping an eye on what you're doing, ready to pounce and remove them at any minute. It's not that at all. 

A similar scheme has been going on in the Highlands, and other councils, for some time now. Some of the people here outraged by the act don't realise a similar scheme is already on the go here and affects them in no way whatsoever. 

I've read both the act and the supreme court judgement.

The 5 judges of the supreme court unanimously said " “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to 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.”

also " The child is not the mere creature  of  the  state;  those  who  nurture  him  and  direct  his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Has it not been explained properly to them? Ascribing ignorance and outrage where it doesn't exist is wrong.

I'm not sure the relevance of another scheme which is not this scheme running in the highlands, bar to wonder what it is about the highlands that makes these things be started there (see guns and the police,open market shared equity scheme etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MacWalka said:

What the hell is minor about the legislation? It's a pretty substantial landmark piece of legislation that will affect everyone born in this country from the moment it becomes active, anyone who is a parent or guardian and anyone who deals with children.

The aims of the legislation are benign in that it aims to protect children. An admirable intention. The actual implementation of it is horrendous though and therein lies the problem.

Reason has abandoned this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

That seems sensible.

I doubt the vast majority of families will know any different or ever have any need for any sort of intervention anyway. If they do need help or an intervention of some sort, then surely it's a good thing?

Think it's the clarity of the whole thing that needs addressed. My kids named person along with her other 400 plus fellow primary school kids is her headmaster. The responsibility is on him, surely the class teacher would've been better and you'd hope any teacher or headmaster would flag up concerns anyway. I'm guessing it's just to cover legal proceedings. When there is a situation with a child I'm concerned when/if it is missed there will just be a blame game, also during school holidays and weekends there's no named person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Och Aye said:

Think it's the clarity of the whole thing that needs addressed. My kids named person along with her other 400 plus fellow primary school kids is her headmaster. The responsibility is on him, surely the class teacher would've been better and you'd hope any teacher or headmaster would flag up concerns anyway. I'm guessing it's just to cover legal proceedings. When there is a situation with a child I'm concerned when/if it is missed there will just be a blame game, also during school holidays and weekends there's no named person. 

The facebook link above doesn't work for me.

You're linking to a close grp on facebook, i fecked about a bit with the link to get access.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Och Aye said:

When there is a situation with a child I'm concerned when/if it is missed there will just be a blame game, also during school holidays and weekends there's no named person. 

I can see the concern about creating scapegoats, and also the problem of the additional workload it could place on a headteacher of a school particularly in a deprived area. In some cases it's probably a job in itself, and more suited to a social worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...