SNPs Orwellian 'Named Person' for all kids scheme, blocked by Judges

[al**bear]

The UKs Supreme Court have struck down the SNPs 'Named Person' scheme

Now according to Wee Nippy and Her acolytes - this is a simple scheme that gives every Kid, one person that can act for them - Maybe a Teacher, Health Visitor (for smaller kids) or some other Non related Adult - just to keep an eye on them

But as You strip away the soft sell , You find out, that the East German STASI could have designed it

The Named Person can see everyone of the Families Health Records - Everybody in the family, even Your Older kids who might be at UNI etc

The Named Person can see ALL the Families  Financial details

and thats just 2 examples, there are loads of frightening intrusive measures into ALL of the families life

Remember this is not only for Children on the radar of Social services - this is for EVERY Child in Scotland

A Named Person is to watch out for the Childs 'Wellbeing' - a word that could mean anything

-------------------

This website has loads of examples of how the scheme has went awry in nearly every area, it's been trialed

But You don't need to believe people like myself, who have been organising against this scheme for a few years

Just watch some OFFICIAL Council training videos - that No2NP has obtained, they show a lot more about How things will turn out in practice instead of what the Government say will happen

they are on this Page.

http://no2np.org/watch-new-training-for-named-persons/

[upthecreekyetagain]

The problem in many headline cases has been that whilst 'worries' may have been reported to one body, such as social services these haven't been linked to concerns expressed by others so no overall picture of a child's life existed and the actual level of abuse went unnoticed.

I accept the concerns over the Scottish proposal and I'm certainly not convinced it is the right way to go.  On a general 'privacy' concern I'm totally against it - in the same way that I'm against other proposals that invade that privacy; such as ID cards and a national DNA database.

You say that 'of course' concerns over a child's welfare should remain on record even if it were believed to be unfounded.  How is that any different to a concern over a child's welfare being held by a 'named person' which could then be linked to any future concerns?

Currently if a neighbour expresses concern over the welfare of a child to social services it may well result in a visit by a social worker and if they are happy then the most that is likely to happen is a follow up visit - meanwhile a teacher may well have expressed concerns about the child's behaviour to their head teacher and there is no way the two reports can be linked.

[dark_castle1]

bank, did this not sort of happen before where children had to fit a certain mould ?

Another little dictator wanted an Aryan Race.

It seems to me nasty nicola is herself fitting a certain mould !

[upthecreekyetagain]

Oh come on!  

I don't for one minute think that there is any dark motive behind these proposals.  I don't like them but looking for ways to keep children safe is a long way from trying to create a master race!

[bankhaunter]

I didn't say that unfounded reports should stay on record though perhaps I should have made it clear.

Results of  the pilot scheme show the dangers of common minor incidences that occur in the lives of a large number of children can be blown out of proportion making parents seem like bad parents purely on heresay and mere opinions with no real foundation in fact.

Those falsehoods then have remained on record with no means to correct them.

A recent survey showed 26% of parents questioned were scared of taking their child to A&E after an accident for fear of an over reaction by social services, with the proposed scheme that would come down to parents being worried about seeking advice on something as simple as nappy rash or a runny nose.

“Suggests infrequent changes of soiled nappy though difficult to assess this,”

“crusts on his face from nasal discharge”

“appeared to have been left for a long time without cleaning”.

With the last example, the name of the person making the comment had been removed.

[upthecreekyetagain]

It's a fine balance between what can be seen as 'unfair' comments on a child's records and what are possibly indicators of a greater problem.  One can cause irritation and unfair interference from social services the other can save a child from real harm.

Maybe it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to child safety.

[Anonymous]

It understand is not easy to find that balance, but sometimes just common sense goes out of the window.

So lets run with this scenario:

A child with a runny nose and dirty face might just have come back from playing it the park, mum is busy cooking and has not had a chance to clean the child's face. Child goes outside again. Neighbour spots it and feels the need to mention this to someone else, who feels the need to report this to a Named person, who feels the need to put this in a report. Now the runny nose has caused an investigation. In the meantime the kid has had a bath every day as it always has, especially after a day running around outside......

So then social services come round. The mother is annoyed about being accused of wrongdoing and is not very friendly to the social worker. This is put in the notes as "mother is not cooperating", or "mother is on edge and seemed stressed".

Because of this a meeting is called with several so called experts. By now the mother is all over the show, is afraid she could lose her child and goes to the doctor who puts her on anti-depressants, as this is the standard nowadays for anyone who looks a bit stressed (another quick fix), so now that is on record as well.

See how one runny nose can escalate by people jumping the gun?

So we're now dealing with an unstable mum, who doesn't seem too responsive and is apparently unwilling to cooperate to change her parenting skills.

Should the neighbour not said anything? Maybe it would have been wise to monitor the child over a longer period to see if it always has a dirty face and runny nose. Maybe the neighbour could have asked the mum while having a friendly chat if the child has an allergy, which could cause the runny nose. Maybe social services could have asked the neighbour first if she gets on with the mother to find out if there might be other motifs behind the comment.

See, there is a lot more investigating needed before you can start to accuse people and drag them in front of a panel. There is a lot more to it, and that takes time. You can argue that a child that is being abused doesn't have the luxury of time. That is true. And therefor there is a need for more trained people to handle these things, before fingers are being pointed. Not a visit for 20 minutes once every 3 months (if that), but regular monitoring. At the moment that is not going to happen, they have caseloads coming out of their ears and no time for frequent visits. So a general tick box list is being used to make things easier as it saves time and effort, regardless of the consequences. And it is the generalising that can become the biggest problem.

[bankhaunter]

It has been known for adverse reports to be drawn up by people who have never seen the child and are simply basing the report on heresay from others.

My SIL used to visit each summer with her three small daughters, one day she said of the youngest one "Look at her, we came out with her looking clean and tidy but in five minutes she looks like a ragamuffin living on the street."

[Anonymous]

Exactly Bank, and with that I have a problem.

I have known a case where a mother had been seeing a counsellor for 18 months for weekly sessions. There were issues. The mother had suffered domestic abuse and sought help after fleeing with her children. She was doing well and so were her kids. If this wasn't the case the counsellor would have had to report it to the doctor if she expected harm to the children or if the woman would have been too unstable to care for them. It's one of the only times when confidentially can be broken, but the mother would have to be informed about it if that was to happen. In 18 months of monitoring she had a good idea how things were going with this family and she had no concerns.

At some point the woman had to go to court regarding the children. The counsellor wasn't allowed to testify, but a clinical psychologist who had seen the children once for 20 minutes, in a setting which was alien for the children, so not even in their own home, was called in to give her expert opinion. In her opinion the children should be put in care. And that is what happened.

Now I find that disgusting. The opinion of the person that had probably  the most inside knowledge of this family counted for nothing and made her feel totally powerless. There was nothing she could do for the mother and the children. She could not stop it from happening.

Maybe this doesn't happen often, I don't know,  I hope not, but I do know that having all the facts in a case is necessary so the right decisions are being made. In this case a family that already went trough so much trauma were taken apart. I don't even want to think about what effects this will have had on them.

[dark_castle1]

upthecreek ! I am not saying nasty nicola wants a super race, I am using that as an example of how one person decided what was the perfect example and how  now as someone else stated it seems as if they want to mould families exactly as they think they should be.

I am sorry but we are all individuals and have different outlooks.

[al**bear]

Councils have contacted Deputy SNP leader John Sweeney

Asking what help they'll get if parents, who have had their rights criminally broken, by the illegal sharing of their digital information, Decide to sue  the Councils

The reply they got was -

The Named Person scheme was advisory, Councils being sued, has nothing to do with the SNP Government. Even though they followed the SNPs guidelines

--------------------

He has also called a major conference about, going forward with the Scheme after the Supreme court ruling

The ONLY People and Organisations invited, are the ones who are in total support of the scheme

So all the People and Organisations that have pointed out, the problems and mistakes made, in the original scheme are frozen out. This includes People who were in support, but raised questions on certain parts of the scheme.

This is the SNPs usual practice - It is THEIR way or NO way.

[upthecreekyetagain]

How come the SNP are getting ALL the criticism over the 'named person' scheme?

I suppose it is being pedantic to point out that the legislation had cross party support and was voted in without a single vote against?

[bankhaunter]

So all the People and Organisations that have pointed out, the problems and mistakes made, in the original scheme are frozen out. This includes People who were in support, but raised questions on certain parts of the scheme.

Standard practice these days, it's similar to the creation of what are known as 'safe spaces', echo chambers to agree on things and where dissent is not allowed.

Like a certain 'Equality Conference' where white males were told they were not welcome.