PDA

View Full Version : Named person scheme falls apart under BBC interrogation



BetterTogether
28-Sep-15, 18:05
If you're interested in what the Named person Scheme will mean to you, your family and children this is worth a listen.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clsaHHT_Vxk

cptdodger
28-Sep-15, 19:07
If you're interested in what the Named person Scheme will mean to you, your family and children this is worth a listen.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clsaHHT_Vxk

Is this for every child or just the ones already under social services ?

BetterTogether
28-Sep-15, 19:19
The named person is for every child in Scotland.

cptdodger
28-Sep-15, 19:35
The named person is for every child in Scotland.

How on earth are they going to even contemplate carrying that out? Fair play if the child/children are already on the at risk register, but in this day and age you are not going to let some random person tell you what you can or cannot do with your children. And where are all these upstanding citizens going to come from, Teachers, Police, Doctors? I can give you an example of people in every one of these professions being in court on child abuse charges. Clearly I am not tarring everybody in those professions with the same brush, but you can never be too careful.

Talk about a nanny state.

golach
28-Sep-15, 20:00
If you're interested in what the Named person Scheme will mean to you, your family and children this is worth a listen.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clsaHHT_VxkI think this is just a Charter for paedophiles , who are the chosen ones going to be, and who will monitor them?

BetterTogether
28-Sep-15, 21:52
I think this is just a Charter for paedophiles , who are the chosen ones going to be, and who will monitor them?Well I gather it's all a bit wishy washy and not particularly well thought at at the moment. The organisations which are to be tasked with implementing the provisions don't seem overly happy about it either. But I'm sure Squidge is probably totally up to speed on it all and will give you valid reasons why every child in Scotland up to the age of 18 will need a state sponsored guardian who will tell them it's ok to keep secrets from parents and guide them along life's route despite whatever the parents may agree or disagree with.

gingernut
28-Sep-15, 22:18
If you're interested in what the Named person Scheme will mean to you, your family and children this is worth a listen.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clsaHHT_Vxk

The Named Person concept has been ongoing in Highland Region for a few years now as Highland was chosen as one of the areas to pilot it. All children have a Named Person. The Named person for children from birth to 10 days of age is the Midwife, for children aged from 11 days up until school entry it's the Health Visitor, and for school aged children it's the Head Teacher.

BetterTogether
28-Sep-15, 22:24
The Named Person concept has been ongoing in Highland Region for a few years now as Highland was chosen as one of the areas to pilot it. All children have a Named Person. The Named person for children from birth to 10 days of age is the Midwife, for children aged from 11 days up until school entry it's the Health Visitor, and for school aged children it's the Head Teacher.

And you're perfectly ok with it ?

Not concerned that someone outwith your family unit tells your child it's ok to keep secrets from them?

Or doesn't the concept of a private life without state intrusion bother you in the slightest ?

I seem to recall that being part of the human rights thing

Right to a private life without unnecessary state intrusion.

gingernut
28-Sep-15, 22:55
And you're perfectly ok with it ?

Not concerned that someone outwith your family unit tells your child it's ok to keep secrets from them?

Or doesn't the concept of a private life without state intrusion bother you in the slightest ?

I seem to recall that being part of the human rights thing

Right to a private life without unnecessary state intrusion.

I'm perfectly OK with it.
In my experience there's no "unnecessary state intrusion" involved.
The Named People are people who have always, in the past been involved with children and families, and their roles are no different from how they ever were....just a different name i.e Named Person.
Their main role is to support children and families when support is required, and have minimal involvement when not required.

squidge
28-Sep-15, 23:30
The named person has been in place since my son was born 26 years ago! It just wasnt called the named person but let's have a look... CPT you must have experienced the same service.

1989 - all pregnant women are allocated a midwife prior to birth and up to 10 days after birth when they hand over to health visitor, the HV looks after child until age 5 when the headteacher or guidance teacher takes over until child leaves school.

2015 - all pregnant women allocated a named person - a midwife from before birth until 10 days after birth when they hand over to health visitor, the HV looks after the child until they are five when the head teacher or guidance teacher takes over as named person until the child leaves school or is 18.

In fact 26 years ago the role of the HV was much more intrusive - weekly visits to your home until child was 12 weeks and woe betide you if you didn't turn up to baby clinic to get baby weighed!

The main difference with this new legislation is that the named person is the contact for any agency or intervention which takes place for that child. So police, social work, any concerns a neighbour or other professional or indeed a parent has can be passed to the named person and this will help to ensure that nothing is missed and to establish any pattern or other concern.

There is no requirement on the named person to be doing assessments on every child. It is only if there is a concern about a child's behaviour that the named person would do any more than their normal role as a teacher or health visitor. Many parents of children with additional support needs have reported that having a NP makes things a lot easier as the NP co ordinates everything for that child and acts as a single point of contact.

In addition, the named person has the new role of linking with a child's new school if the child moves to ensure that they are indeed at that school and that any concerns are passed on.

As for a paedophiles charter that's nonsense. The named person is the professionals as shown, where the headteacher delegates the role - in a big school for example - it must be to a teacher holding an enhanced post - like guidance or year head for example. You might as well say that putting a child to school is a paedophiles charter.

Gingernut is absolutely right to say that it has been operated in Highland for several years. In the normal run of things there will be no specific action for a named person to take other than their normal duties. Only if something causes a concern would any further assessment or action be necessary.

I do have some concerns around how this operates if the relationship between parent and NP has broken down, or if a child is home educated and its not clear how the role of NP works once a child has left school but before they are 18. But the level of hysteria about this role is nonsense.

If you are worried here is the legislation. It looks a bit daunting perhaps but it is just section 4. You can read it yourself. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/8/contents/enacted

I do have to admit to stifling a wry smile at BT promoting No2Np which is led by a Christian organisation!

cptdodger
28-Sep-15, 23:52
Okay, but a Named Person suggests to me just that, one named person not a multitude as in my case. I can't tell you how many midwifes I had, I certainly didn't have a named one, and I had four children, two born in Scotland, with the second child, most of the care was in England, then I had him in Scotland because of an incident at Whipps Cross Hospital in East London, then the younger two were born in England, one at home, one in hospital. I was lucky if I saw the same midwife twice. As for Health Visitors, I saw them when I took the children to be weighed, again not just one person, I never saw a Health Visitor outwith that.

Schools, in my Grandsons case, who is not out of Primary school yet (England) he has had umpteen teachers (they keep leaving) and at the last count four different Head teachers. It may very well be different in the Highland Region, because of the sparse population compared to where I lived in Scotland and England (London), but to me, there will be no continuity, no matter which way you look at it.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 00:07
The named person is the role. And for me, - my three oldest children were born in Manchester - I saw lots of midwives before the birth but a single one after and a single health visitor. The NP role is allocated to the role so a head teacher or a guidance teacher - a promoted post - to assist with continuity. It should remain with that role throughout the child's schooling as teachers can change every year but head teachers tend to remain the same.

There is a No2np roadshow in Inverness. They don't look to be going up to Caithness but people might want to pop down and attend or get in touch and ask them to take a trip up the road. I went to one in Dingwall last December I think. it was an interesting evening.

As I said, I do have some concerns about how it will work in particular situations but I have two kids in school just now and this doesn't worry me nor the majority of parents at the school either

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 07:59
Surprising how Squidge is such an authority on the issue but the people who will be charged with actually undertaking the roles aren't so sure, why is she being at best light with the honesty.

The named person has much farther reaching powers than your midwife as,per usual she is truth lite when it comes to SNP policy but we are all now fully aware she is hoping to hop on the political gravy train so will tow the unswerving party line and blur the truth with political ambition.

Let alone the court case currently rolling through the system to try stop it being introduced. The wording of the named person scheme is very loose and open to interpretation.

Why would a member of the state tell your child it's ok to keep secrets from its parents but tell them. That is one of the more ominous parts of the proposed legislation.
It's all very well and good telling us one thing but as we are all aware government legislation is rarely the benign instrument it's made out to be when used incorrectly or by a self serving state it can be wielded like a very heavy club.

The Named person scheme has no safeguards for parents and the appeals process as currently set out it torturous at best.
This is just another piece of unwanted unnecessary oppressive intrusive state legislation.

Why do people feel that Scotland is the only fully westernised country where our children need another level of state guardianship outwith the parental unit.

I hear many pro independence people say they feel oppressed but in my view this has to be oppressive legislation in its purest form. Introducing wide ranging clumsy legislation that has no tight legal parameters and is open to the vague interpretation is no more than a recipe for disaster.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 08:32
If as is said nothing is changing and it is midwifes, health visitors, teachers and head teachers that are doing whatever this named person is supposed to do already, then what is the point of this? Something else must be happening, or what is the point of this bill.

It may sound like a great idea to some, but I doubt people in Orkney would agree, this is what happens when authorities get it terribly wrong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 08:55
There are changes CPT as I mentioned already. There is a duty to act when a child changes school, there is to be a central point to collect together all concerns and oversee the process, there is a duty to assess a child when a wellbeing concern is raised and there is a duty to put the needs of the child first. And whilst Orkney - and Rochdale - were terrible situations there are so many situations where had the people involved in the cafe of a child spoken to each other, shared information through a central point then patterns would have been seen and the child could potentially have been saved. Baby Peter, Victoria climbie and too many others. Without a doubt there are issues with this legislation but the argument that I heard from the No2np meeting was mainly " my family don't need this so we shouldn't have it". If your family doesn't need support from or help from or indeed intervention from a NAmed Person then they won't get it. But if they do then it's right that it is there and not lacking surely.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 09:03
Here you go cpt instead of listening to flim flam from the org activist why not read for yourself. No better source than the Scot gov website which just happens to note all the problems.



http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/06/9933/7


Once again a gross understatement by our defacto SNP spokesperson the issue is more than just if you've done nothing you've got nothing to worry about. It's about a heavy handed badly thought out poorly drafted piece of legislations the potential of misuse cannot be understated. Also lets be honest hear the appeals process is tortuous at best so it's a system already mired in controversy before it's even launche. Let alone the court case that seems to be destined to hit the European courts.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 09:30
There are changes CPT as I mentioned already. There is a duty to act when a child changes school, there is to be a central point to collect together all concerns and oversee the process, there is a duty to assess a child when a wellbeing concern is raised and there is a duty to put the needs of the child first. And whilst Orkney - and Rochdale - were terrible situations there are so many situations where had the people involved in the cafe of a child spoken to each other, shared information through a central point then patterns would have been seen and the child could potentially have been saved. Baby Peter, Victoria climbie and too many others. Without a doubt there are issues with this legislation but the argument that I heard from the No2np meeting was mainly " my family don't need this so we shouldn't have it". If your family doesn't need support from or help from or indeed intervention from a NAmed Person then they won't get it. But if they do then it's right that it is there and not lacking surely.

Nobody in Orkney needed to be saved, that's the point, children were taken away from their families because of something made up in a social workers head, a snippet from the enquiry -

"Liz McLean, the social worker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_worker) who led the interviews with the children, had also been involved in the 1990 Rochdale "Satanic Abuse" case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#Rochdale) . She was later sharply criticised by Lord Clyde in the official inquiry into the South Ronaldsay case, and in another investigation into similar allegations in Ayrshire".

As you point out, if a family does not need help help or support from the named person they won't get it, do you honestly think the parents or whoever was responsible for the murder of Baby P would have told their named person what they were going to do with the child? of course not, they would have told their named person they didn't want or need support.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 09:35
Here you go cpt instead of listening to flim flam from the org activist why not read for yourself. No better source than the Scot gov website which just happens to note all the problems.



http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/06/9933/7


Once again a gross understatement by our defacto SNP spokesperson the issue is more than just if you've done nothing you've got nothing to worry about. It's about a heavy handed badly thought out poorly drafted piece of legislations the potential of misuse cannot be understated. Also lets be honest hear the appeals process is tortuous at best so it's a system already mired in controversy before it's even launche. Let alone the court case that seems to be destined to hit the European courts.

That link looks to me that somebody, whoever it was that came up with this bright idea, they have thought nothing through. They have just had an idea and said it out loud and run with it, there are so many gaps in it, it is just not workable.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 09:43
Funnily enough the legislation is being forced through despite all the involved organisations saying there will be major issues with implementation.

How happy would any parent be when an over zealous social worker takes a snippet of information from a child and circulates it around numerous government organisations.

The parameters for the whole scheme are so loosely defined it's just a poor solution looking for a problem to fix.

How do you quantify how happy a child is ?

Are they spiritual?

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 09:52
Funnily enough the legislation is being forced through despite all the involved organisations saying there will be major issues with implementation.

How happy would any parent be when an over zealous social worker takes a snippet of information from a child and circulates it around numerous government organisations.

The parameters for the whole scheme are so loosely defined it's just a poor solution looking for a problem to fix.

How do you quantify how happy a child is ?

Are they spiritual?

All this says to me is the SNP does not trust parents that they will be able to raise and care for their children. I don't care what reason is given for it, I find it very sanctimonious. If anybody thinks this is going to stop child abuse/neglect then they are sadly mistaken, unless their named person is going to be with the child/children 24 hours a day.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 10:10
Well that's another issue its no secret that paedophiles are drawn towards organisations that give them easy access to children. It's also no secret the amount of teachers who have been prosecuted for having sex with children in their care. The list is fairly long as to prove there is no single proffesion that is safe despite checks to guard against them, yet here we have legislation that is telling children it's ok to have secrets from mum and dad, but not from their named person. That amounts to a paedophiles charter.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 10:23
Well that's another issue its no secret that paedophiles are drawn towards organisations that give them easy access to children. It's also no secret the amount of teachers who have been prosecuted for having sex with children in their care. The list is fairly long as to prove there is no single proffesion that is safe despite checks to guard against them, yet here we have legislation that is telling children it's ok to have secrets from mum and dad, but not from their named person. That amounts to a paedophiles charter.

While I would imagine these Named People would have to have a Disclosure, whether it is basic or otherwise, that will only show anything if they have actually been caught. So, in reality there are many people out there who have a valid Disclosure, but are in fact peadophiles, so you are right, there is nothing to safeguard your child/children. I have no idea why people are not more bothered by this. And as for children being told to keep secrets from their parents, right there, they are damaging that child.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 11:00
Why aren't people bothered.

Well a lot will be too busy earning a living and wrapped up in their own lives.

Some will say " oh it's politics and just ignore it and assume everything will be fine"

Others will say " it's just another assault on my party, my flag ,my land, irrespective of how much knowledge they posses on the subject "

Then you'll have the ones who like the state to run their lives as they want to be near the top of the machine telling everyone how to live and what to do.

You'll also have the paedophiles who come in Female as well as Male form and they will do their absolute best to reassure you everything is fine and nothing could ever possibly go wrong before the strike.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 11:29
All this says to me is the SNP does not trust parents that they will be able to raise and care for their children. I don't care what reason is given for it, I find it very sanctimonious. If anybody thinks this is going to stop child abuse/neglect then they are sadly mistaken, unless their named person is going to be with the child/children 24 hours a day.

Sadly many parents cannot be trusted to take care of their own children but simply because WE can, does that mean this system should not be in place. I think there are issues with this legislation and a serious part of that is the appeals process but I think that you are wrong to suggest that this legislation would not have helped children who were failed because professionals did not speak to one another when the legislation explicitly provides for a central point of contact to ensure the whole picture is seen.

It is interesting to note from the quoted comments that BT suggests my broad support for this legislation is political lol. I spent 3 months this summer campaigning to be selected as a candidate. I was persuaded to stand in June and it was all over by August. In contrast I have been a mum for 26 years. BT is often find of saying that people who don't have his level of experience have no idea what they are talking about but I think I am right in saying that in this particular subject I am the one with children actually at a school in Highland.

My children are subjected to the Named person system right now. I'm involved in school things with other parents who's children are also subject to the named person system. Have I heard any complaints? No. Have the teachers at school - the named persons - raised any issues about changes in procedure at school council meetings - No.

There are legitimate concerns about this legislation. But the suggestion that it should not proceed because teachers or other named persons might be paedophiles is not a sensible reason in my opinion.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 11:36
So Squidge admits the legislation has issues and some of them serious but is quite happy to release it onto the general public.

That really does show incompetence nothing more nothing less.

The act if it's passed onto the statute books should be as near perfect as you can get not some string bag of nonsense loosely tied with good intentions, and that is where we differ greatly.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 13:01
You could also argue on Squidges point if to all intent and purposes it already exists for most children in the form of midwives, teachers etc and most people won't even notice it or have any impact from it, then what actually is the point in introducing the act apart from it costing a large sum of money which could be better spent elsewhere.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 13:02
So Squidge admits the legislation has issues and some of them serious but is quite happy to release it onto the general public. That really does show incompetence nothing more nothing less. The act if it's passed onto the statute books should be as near perfect as you can get not some string bag of nonsense loosely tied with good intentions, and that is where we differ greatly.

Ok I give in BT And respond as sensibly as possible to your erm ..... Points.

I'm afraid what this post shows is an ignorance of how laws are implemented. Once the law is in place we then need to draw up the guidance for How that law is implemented and we are at that stage just now. Systems to ensure the law is carried out won't be decided until after the law is passed because of the number of amendments that can be made.

In the case of my concerns around appeals, any law may state "an applicant has the right to appeal". But the actual methods, system and processes as to how that appeal takes place will need to be agreed and may in fact differ from one responsible body to another. So, where I have concerns is in seeing how this law to allow appeals is implemented.

I don't think that is some string bag of nonsense. I think the law is the framework within which services operate and thst there needs to be flexibility within the guidance which allows different areas to develop systems which meet the local needs of the people that they deal with.

It's worth pointing out too that the court cases raised by the Christian Institute and Care have failed on both occasions with their petitions dismissed as hyperbole.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 13:07
Ok ok ok I give up. Ok I give in BT. I'm afraid what this post shows is an ignorance of how laws are implemented. Once the law is in place we then need to draw up the guidance for How that law is implemented and we are at that stage just now. Systems to ensure the law is carried out won't be decided until after the law is passed because of the number of amendments that can be made. In the case of my concerns around appeals the law may state "an applicant has the right to appeal". But the actual methods, system and processes as to how that appeal takes place will need to be agreed and may in fact differ from one responsible body to another. So, where I have concerns is in seeing how this law to allow appeals is implemented. I don't think that is some string bag of nonsense. I think the law is the framework within which services operate and thst there needs to be flexibility within the guidance which allows different areas to develop systems which meet the local needs of the people that they deal with. There have also been court cases raised by the Christian Institute and Care which have failed on both occasions with their petitions dismissed as hyperbole.What you have consistently failed to do is explain clearly and concisely why this needs to be implemented for every single child in Scotland. Why does the state feel that it needs to have a controlling interest in every child that isn't at risk has no defined social problems and is achieving all that it should. The framework already exists for those who are in situations that are problematic so why a cover all, blanket approach ?

I do believe the case in question is moving up to the higher courts and along to the European court where no doubt it will fall foul of the Human Rights.. Unnecessary state intervention in the private lives of individuals.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 13:27
Did you ask me to do that? nobody apparently thought that post was worth quoting.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 13:28
" my family don't need this so we shouldn't have it". If your family doesn't need support from or help from or indeed intervention from a NAmed Person then they won't get it.

You said yourself, if the families don't want support they won't get it, so unless this name person or persons if there is more than one child is forced on these families, how will they stop abuse or whatever it is they are supposed to be doing ?

Who is going to police these people to make sure they are doing their jobs? You are talking about thousands of people that need training, that need to be audited to make sure they are doing their jobs. Where is all this money coming from to do this?

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 13:30
I do believe the case in question is moving up to the higher courts and along to the European court where no doubt it will fall foul of the Human Rights.. Unnecessary state intervention in the private lives of individuals.

What case are you talking about here ?

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 13:43
Ive not been really following this one, so typed into google named person scheme and loads of sites jump up, majority being against this on grounds of impracticalities and unessesary interference by the state in children that arent at risk have no defined social problems and achieving all that it should ( BTG....plenty ammo goes down this route that you point out ) theres an on line petition that you can register your opposition...what with armed coppers, alarming amounts of stopping and searching youngsters and now this....tell me have I woken up in 1984 ??

http://no2np.org/

squidge
29-Sep-15, 14:08
You said yourself, if the families don't want support they won't get it, so unless this name person or persons if there is more than one child is forced on these families, how will they stop abuse or whatever it is they are supposed to be doing ? Who is going to police these people to make sure they are doing their jobs? You are talking about thousands of people that need training, that need to be audited to make sure they are doing their jobs. Where is all this money coming from to do this?

What I said was that if families don't need support or intervention then nothing will happen.

Probably it's useful to use some case studies to see how it will work.

Class teacher notices a child is tired and hungry. They ask the child what's going on but the child says nothing. The class teacher is still not happy so reports her concerns about the behaviour of the child to the named person. (Headteacher). The police are called to the child's house after the report of a disturbance to find the mum distressed because the estranged husband is threatening not to return the children to the mum after a visit. The police notice that the child's house is a complete mess so explain to the mum that they need to refer this to social work. A report goes to named person. Because that is the central point for all concerns around a particular child. The social worker goes to see the mum and the child. The house is much cleaner but it is clear that mum is struggling with depression and child has been supporting mum with their wee sister hence late nights, not having time for breakfast. The social worker puts extra support in place for mum with a place at a nursery for the wee one and a support group for mums post natal depression. A report goes to the Named Person. The named person can reviews the actions taken in a way that services were not doing before and establishes whether anything else needs to be done. They also can put in place the provisions for young carers which will cut the child a little slack and they keep an eye on the behaviour of said child to ensure any issues are explored promptly.

Child attends school regularly. There is no change in their behaviour, there are no concerns about well being the named person takes no action, records nothing and leaves the child and the family to get on with whatever they are doing.

Class teacher hears gossip that a child is sexually active. The child is 16. Refers concerns to Named Person. The Named Person may decide to speak to the child to establish if they are aware of the need for contraception and the danger of STDs. Parents are not informed.

Child has a black eye. Referred to NP who notes the child's black eye. Police are called to house where mother is beaten by husband but refuses to consider pressing charges - children appear ok. Social workers are called to house where a concern has been raised by a neighbour in an anonymous call that they are hearing child crying and lots of shouting. All seems ok and social worker is not overly concerned. Mother says that child is being "teenagerish" all these things happen in isolation but because there is a concern information is passed from all agencies to the Named Person. The next thing is that child when changing for gym has a really nasty bruise on their leg. In isolation these issues might well be passed off as a one off or not to be followed up but because the Named Person has all the information then they can see that this requires further investigation.

Child goes to guidance teacher (named person) to say how unhappy they are at home. The guidance teacher explores this and finds that the child's parents are arguing a lot and it's worrying the child. The child says she doesn't want her parents told but would like to talk to the guidance teacher about how she is feeling. Guidance teacher agrees and parents aren't informed. Guidance teacher meets with child to listen and support child.

All teachers and professionals undergo training on a regular basis it's called CPD, CPT (lol) continuing professional development. Where there are concerns that a teacher or head teacher or midwife or health visitor is not meeting the standards they should then there are line managers with responsibility to ensure they do so.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 14:27
You do paint lovely pictures Squidge of how wonderful it all seems so let's take a few examples.

The child who is unhappy at home because his parents are arguing a lot and it's worrying the child so they go speak to their guidance teacher.
But what may not be mentioned is both parents are working full time to maintain the household and the child is demanding the latest computer games which are 18 plus rated and cost a lot of money also the child is constantly playing with their mobile phone and not listening to the reasonable request of the parents to use it less. This leads to arguments between the parents.
Just as equally a credible scenario.

The child has a black eye and when asked about it by the NP gets embarrassed and makes up some story to cover the reality and not lose face.
The family are then subjected to a state intervention which spirals out of control with over zealous NPs talking to the child who now feels unable to change their story.

The child who is tired and hungry but is going through a growth spurt so their body is struggling to adapt as its growing so fast but the NP thinks it's down to something else so instigates a pernicious investigation.

Child is sexually active at 16.
Quite legal no need for intervention unless it is with one of the teachers as per a case today in news from Berwickshire.


You seem to take the view that all households are abusive war zones when the reality is far from the case.

Those that do have issues are already dealt with by Social services so once again why the need for this poorly written, ill conceived piece of legislation that stretches the claws of the state into ordinary households.

Your own personal experiences may or may not cloud your view on what occurs within most homes but they are not all destructive hell pits that require the state to intervene.
What this really comes down to is another colossal waste of taxpayers money by a party that seem to think it needs to micro manage every aspect of people's lives while failing magnificently to run the areas already under its control.

The more you post the more I wonder whether you're not really Diane Abbot.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 14:33
Ive not been really following this one, so typed into google named person scheme and loads of sites jump up, majority being against this on grounds of impracticalities and unessesary interference by the state in children that arent at risk have no defined social problems and achieving all that it should ( BTG....plenty ammo goes down this route that you point out ) theres an on line petition that you can register your opposition...what with armed coppers, alarming amounts of stopping and searching youngsters and now this....tell me have I woken up in 1984 ??http://no2np.org/It does seem all very kafkaesque !

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 14:45
It does seem all very kafkaesque !

Yes thats more appropraite than my Orwellian suggestion....mind you we could have a Kafkaeque Orwellian situation eh l

squidge
29-Sep-15, 15:00
You are right BT that the scenarios can be viewed in different ways. So let's use yours too. I'll number them for ease.

1. In neither yours nor my scenario does the state intervene. The NP supports the child with their concerns by providing them with a simple sounding board. No need to bring the parents in and no need to engage further support - the child is simply supported to deal with whatever is upsetting them. Where is there an "unecessary intrusion by the state into family life" there isn't. Surely you would agree that it is perfectly ok for the guidance teacher to give the child space to explore their feelings if that is what they want. However, it might be that the child asks the NP to speak to their parents and then they would do exactly that.

2. I don't really understand what you are saying here. In your scenario the child makes up a story like what? My dad hit me? If that was what was said and it wasn't true surely you would expect someone to investigate to make sure that dad wasnt doing the hitting? Even in the absence of any other concerns. Even you wouldn't suggest that should be ignored? If the child said something like "my brother threw a book at me" then with the absence of the rest of the information - social workers report, police report - there would be nothing to investigate. A note would likely be made that child had a black eye but no further action would need to be taken unless there were further concerns.

3. Again, a tired and hungry child by itself would not necessarily be a cause for serious concern in the absence of other concerns. You will note that there were other issues in my scenario which led to an intervention. However, you are correct to say that there is always the potential for a pernicious investigation. To initiate an investigation the NP would need to include social work or health or other agencies. The NP themselves can't go storming into a house a remove a child. Where a NP does something unprofessional or malicious that would lead to disciplinary action and possibly dismissal. That indeed would be an unecessary intrusion but then it would be against the terms of the legislation.

4. And there was no further intervention in this case in my scenario either.

I take no such view of all households as abusive war zones but I know that unfortunately many children do live in situations which are damaging and unpleasant and a few are in grave and mortal danger if no one notices. Unfortunately it is also true that often, in the past, social services have failed to act to prevent these situations.or have failed to make the connections that meant that families didn't get help which might have prevented a great deal of stress, despair and anguish if not actually death.

I don't need the support of a NP for my children just now and I hope I never need it. I'm not arrogant enough to think that just coz im alright jack, everyone else is, or that because I don't need a service it shouldn't be put in place. As a parent I am the best person to look after and look out for my children but not every child has that in their lives. Why would I oppose a service that can make a difference to those children just coz I don't think i need it. I don't have any fear of a professional watching out for the wellbeing of my children at all and if they are concerned raising those concerns.

cptdodger
29-Sep-15, 15:13
All teachers and professionals undergo training on a regular basis it's called CPD, CPT (lol) continuing professional development. Where there are concerns that a teacher or head teacher or midwife or health visitor is not meeting the standards they should then there are line managers with responsibility to ensure they do so.

What I was saying was, if they are not getting any extra training to be a "Named Person" with all that that entails, then they are just doing their jobs nothing will change.

If you want examples of when things can go wrong in the system. My ex husband reported me to Social Services for reasons I am not going to put on here. That ensued months of visits, questions and intrusion for both myself and the children, which in turn affected their school work because they thought they were being taken away from me. My daughter went from an outgoing happy child, to a child that basically stopped communicating and eating at one point. The accusations were found to be well and truly false. The reason for these accusations - spite.

Another example, I got a letter from my sons school asking me to go to a Doctor with my son as the teacher was concerned he wasn't growing properly, so me, my son and his step-father went to see this Doctor, she explained in front of my son they were concerned about his height, I asked why, she said "well look at his father" I replied I would if he was here. His father was five foot inches, his step father was six foot three. The teacher had just presumed my second husband was my sons father. That left my son with an inferiority complex for quite a while.

Maybe the intentions of these Named People are good, but the flip side is, they can also do a lot of damage as well.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 15:22
You are absolutely right CPT and that is why there is training, there is a framework in place for establishing well being which all professionals working with children are trained in. It's not perfect and it's not going to be right every single time. But, it's not state guardianship either, nor is it intrusive in the everyday operation. It's horrible being subjected to an investigation based on malicious allegations but this legislation will enable professionals to see more of the whole picture than before.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 16:32
See what you suggest is normally the work of social services who by your own admission already make mistakes and have some quite serious failings.
By implementing a system which would place all children under scrutiny regardless of whether required or not stretches the system even further meaning it becomes more likely that mistakes are made not less likely.
The wording on the named persons scheme is to say the least poorly defined. Wellbeing, happiness, spirituality. These are very loose definitions and open to interpretation regardless of whether you agree or disagree it's hard to ensure every child is happy all the time.
Some people are just not happy souls all the time it doesn't mean they are damaged in anyway, some are just not spiritual so to put a system in place that requires children to adhere to some tick box culture shows how out of touch those who have complied this act are.
Training and frameworks will never replace good parenting and those that are adept at hiding the truth and manipulating will still pull the wool over the eyes of those involved. What is not required is a catch all act that by its very exsistence places another person within a family unit, despite what you say there will be instances of those in power over reaching and creating scenarios that will only do harm.
All it takes is one pugnacious teacher who is at odds with a parents view on how life should be lived the end results do not bear thinking about.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 17:26
L
See what you suggest is normally the work of social services who by your own admission already make mistakes and have some quite serious failings. By implementing a system which would place all children under scrutiny regardless of whether required or not stretches the system even further meaning it becomes more likely that mistakes are made not less likely.The wording on the named persons scheme is to say the least poorly defined. Wellbeing, happiness, spirituality. These are very loose definitions and open to interpretation regardless of whether you agree or disagree it's hard to ensure every child is happy all the time.Some people are just not happy souls all the time it doesn't mean they are damaged in anyway, some are just not spiritual so to put a system in place that requires children to adhere to some tick box culture shows how out of touch those who have complied this act are.Training and frameworks will never replace good parenting and those that are adept at hiding the truth and manipulating will still pull the wool over the eyes of those involved. What is not required is a catch all act that by its very exsistence places another person within a family unit, despite what you say there will be instances of those in power over reaching and creating scenarios that will only do harm. All it takes is one pugnacious teacher who is at odds with a parents view on how life should be lived the end results do not bear thinking about.

No actually it's not just the work of social services to identify where there is a wellbeing concern about a child. It may be down to Social services to ACT on that concern but in 21st Century we understand that it requires professionals who talk to each other, share information and understand the whole picture to deal with many situations where children are struggling.

There is no suggestion either in the legislation or anywhere else that tick boxes or the NP should "replace good parenting" or that a NP should be placed within the family unit and I think you probably know that. The guidance around measuring a child's wellbeing is well established guidance which all professionals know and understand and which provides a robust system for assessing how a child is.

Whilst you are right that over zealous professionals can indeed cause harm to children, allowing those children who don't live in your happy supported family to continue to struggle can not just lead to harm, it can lead to death. Arguing that we should not have NP because someone might abuse their role is like saying we should not have soldiers because some of them might shoot someone they aren't supposed to, or because some policemen might overstep their mark and assault a prisoner then we shouldn't have policemen, or that because some nurses have been found guilty of murdering their patients then we shouldn't have nurses.

We aren't going to agree on this BT. The bottom line is I guess, that as a parent of two children in primary school in Highland I am not hearing other parents raising serious concerns about this and I'm not worried about it myself. Have you been talking about it at the school gates or on your parent council? If there are parents at your school who are worried then perhaps it would be wise to talk to the headteacher - the Named Person lol - about it. Or you could talk to some of the other professionals to put yourselves at ease. Like I said though there is a No2NP meeting being held. Maybe ask them to come and hold a meeting in Caithness. That might be helpful.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 17:31
So care to put some spin on why it's ok for Scottish NHS to share children's confidential medical records with social services, police, education etc etc.


http://www.digitalbydefaultnews.co.uk/2015/09/21/scottish-health-board-to-share-health-data-with-partner-organisations/


Seems more like bureaucratic megalomania !

squidge
29-Sep-15, 17:47
No I can't be bothered.

You clearly have never had to try to negotiate the sharing of health and social care records between professionals to enable the child you care for to get the additional support that he needs. The idea that a child with additional needs will have all his health and care requirements in one place accessible to professionals involved in his care seems a no brainier to me.

However, you are not likely to agree and may decide its some sort of paedophiles information exchange and I'll have to waste a whole other day when I'm NOT sick calmly explaining things again and again. If you don't know the benefit of sharing information... Now how does the article put it " where appropriate, using proper information governance protocols, so that the best decisions can be made, and the safest and most effective care delivered for children." Then it's a waste of time me bothering.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 17:53
I'm just wondering if during all those negotiations the " Data Protection Act " ever came on to your radar.

It's not something you need to explain to me but it is a statutory implement not something to be circumnavigated because of ease between different bodies.

See here we go you disagree with me but it seems you're more than happy to just share children's confidential information in what would be considered a totally irresponsible manner outside government agencies.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 17:57
Seems this is more a case of new legislation being used in a drag net fashion with those supposed professionals sharing highly confidential information between themselves making decisions on a child's life with no input from the parents and the most arduous inefficient appeals process in place should something go horribly wrong.

I'd use your example of I can't be bothered to show as an example of what may happen when a named person is challenged.

I can't be bothered I'm right your wrong and that's it end of conversation let the wheels of the state roll another child's life messed up.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 17:58
Actually the Children and young persons act and the article you mention takes proper account of the Data Protection Act, it's written into the legislation and it's mentioned in the article - that's what "proper information governance protocols" means as I think you know.But why let that get in the way of a rumplestiltskin moment eh BT Lol

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 18:01
I think you've proven my point with your I can't be bothered reply.


Imagine you as a named person facing a difference of opinion.

Protocol goes out the window belligerence and a self righteous attitude take over.


I thank you for showing why it's such a very bad idea !

golach
29-Sep-15, 18:09
Why do we need this? I remember the Orkney debacle, children taken from their beds in the middle of the night, family's destroyed, and nothing was ever proven. I see no need for this, or the national identity card scheme , another SNP senseless scheme. Kick them into touch.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/orkney-child-sex-abuse-scandal-1099361

squidge
29-Sep-15, 22:48
I think you've proven my point with your I can't be bothered reply.Imagine you as a named person facing a difference of opinion. Protocol goes out the window belligerence and a self righteous attitude take over.I thank you for showing why it's such a very bad idea !Oh BT give over lol. You are the huffiest person I know. Still I think we managed two more posts than last time before you fell into an insult or two. I count that a triumph of rationality. We are making progress lol.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 22:57
No the triumph of progress is the SNP finally being shown for the rag tag bunch of say anything to get in power shower they really are.

Now are you sure you want to be associated with a party which appears to be mired in controversy.


I'm sure Labour will welcome you back with open arms.


I'm always amazed how you manage to reply so vociferously to my posts considering the amount of times you claim to have blocked me, now that really does amuse me.

Mind I think we are all starting to see what the SNP says and does are two different things.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 08:02
I can choose to view your posts without unblocking you lol. It was clear you were responding directly to me from quoted posts so I thought it might be worth a shot at a polite, sensible discussion. And I was off sick so I had time to indulge and named persons are an interesting subject to me as a mum. So I thought I'd give responding to you a shot and like I said It lasted longer than the last time we spoke directly. But it seems nothing has changed, you can't have a discussion without chucking in personal insults or accusations. So it's back to the ignore button as I refuse to waste my time on responding to your nastiness. Discussion is fine, nastiness just poisons the day. I'm too old to be bothered with people who drag everything down. So it's back to quoted posts only for now.Xxx

BetterTogether
30-Sep-15, 08:50
And it's back to playing the victim card,how utterly tiresome.

And that is why that's why the named person scheme is such a bad idea dearest Squidge being a perfect example of the type of person who would be a named person and her inability to accept another view.

Now imagine it's her your dealing with on a major view clash, how long do you think you'd last before your child was whisked away into the arms of the state.

I rest my case at why it's such a bad idea.

A fairly typical response from a pedigogue who spits the dummy out at anyone who disagree fortunately I am also more than old enough to deal with pedantic prima donnas with limited world views.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 09:24
Actually, I think I accepted your view and CPTs view although I find the "we can't have this - these people must be paedophiles" a bit alarmist. In fact I think that my suggestion that you speak to the parents that have raised this issue with you or that you know who ARE worried about this issue and maybe approach the head teacher with your concerns, or that you ask No2Np to come along to Caithness a very sensible and respectful response given that you were not happy with what I have to say. What was it about that which you found disrespectful or in some way patronising or belittling or inflexible?We aren't going to agree with each other BT and that's ok. But at 51 I don't HAVE to engage with someone who moves every discussion down to name calling - it's not the playground. As you are not my boss, don't pay my wages and frequently tell me that you hold no personal opinion about me at all I find it interesting that you can find so many ways to be unpleasant.

BetterTogether
30-Sep-15, 09:38
Ah well that's explains it you're a mere young pup. I move the debate because that's what happens with debates they move evolve, it's the way life is wouldn't it be just wonderful fun if we sat and debated the one part of an issue without digressing into the broader aspects. Why do you consider it ok to use alarmist examples of wife beaters and domestic violence but when I say paedophiles you find that unacceptable all seems to me as though you wish to define and control the debate and are not prepared to accept an opposing view. You make assumptions a lot of them like I don't have children, don't speak to people never go near a school but I haven't a clue what you base that on as I've never mentioned my family on here so you're assuming things and then all upset when I just plough on because your assumptions are entirely based on a false premise. It seems to me your always upset and hurt playing the victim card when debates get heated where as I just roll with it,I've said it before maybe you're not cut out for politics as there will always be people who vociferously disagree with you but out there in the real world you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la, you need to be able to engage and fight passionately. With Rob I am diametrically opposed to many of his ideas but I can find common ground because we both concede, with you there is no concession no give you try to bulldoze people with your views. I've noticed that you refuse to discuss any thread that discuss's SNP failure or doesn't toe the party line.

cptdodger
30-Sep-15, 10:09
Actually, I think I accepted your view and CPTs view although I find the "we can't have this - these people must be paedophiles" a bit alarmist.

I am not saying that every single named person is a peadophile, what I am saying is that the families (I doubt) would have any say into who this person or persons will become named people. I have no idea how much involvement these people will have with the children. The problem is, and you must have read this in the press, that certain people in posts of authority (maybe that's not the right word) have abused those posts, and as I pointed out they don't have it tattooed across their head. So while I don't want to appear to be alarmist, if you are going to entrust the care and wellbeing of your child to a stranger, you want to make damn sure that person does not abuse your or the childs trust.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 10:35
You are right CPT but these are not random people plucked off the street. So as an example, when you choose a school for your children you would not send them if you thought the head teacher was a paedophile. You would decide whether you liked the school, whether you liked the headteacher, the ethos of the school, you might look at the reports of the school from the inspectors and you would trust that the head teacher was a professional person who did a good job. Having made the decision to send your child to a school then you put your trust in that school - it seems a bit odd to then think that the headteacher as a Named Person should not be a named person because they might be a paedophile.

The same with Drs, nurses, midwives, health visitors. To accept the help of a midwife in looking after your pregnancy and birth and then refuse their help with your new baby because they might be a paedophile doesn't make sense to me I'm sorry. Where the NP role is devolved down to another teacher in a big school, the legislation states that must be a teacher in a senior post. Not someone just in the door. Again, that is another safeguard.

If, however, people are worried about the possibility of teachers being peadophiles in their own school, then the person to discuss that with is the head teacher or the Education Service which will be able to explain the safeguards that are in place. I think that whilst we always need to be vigilant and there are a small number of professional people who take advantage of vulnerable young people to say we should not do something because there might be paedophiles is not a sensible way of making policy.

BetterTogether
30-Sep-15, 10:52
Ok there we go muddled thinking one on one !
Because we all know paedophiles go round with signs on their head and admit to everything when asked.

The mere fact that there have been an avalanche of historical sex abuses trials coming to the fore of late, is a perfect example of how long it can take for these particular cases to surface.
Squidge doesn't seem to recognise that an extension of powers isn't the same as keeping powers as they are.

A Vunerable person can still be abused by a school teacher there have been two cases in the national press in the last couple of days one in Scotland the other in England more children being abused.
One a male teacher doing the abusing the other a female teacher, to say that having a quick word with them to ascertain their motives is ridiculous.
Due to the nature of life we have to put trust in others but that is a necessity to extend the powers of an individual for no other reason than as a political vanity project designed as a catch all net is absurd.

We have yet to be given one good reason why we need a further extension of powers, why the powers as drafted and found to be unworkable by those due to implement them are acceptable, also where is the finance coming from for all this.
It is also duly noted her silence on the current swathe of problems circling the SNP, not a word almost deafening silence when it comes to the corruption eating at the heart of the party,but no,don't mention any of that, let's discuss with their poorly drafted unworkable latest piece of state control.

cptdodger
30-Sep-15, 11:11
And that is just it, yes you can choose your child's school on the basis of reports and so on. In some cases (depending where you live) you can choose a GP, and on it goes, you make choices in the best interests of your children. As far as I can see, the families have no choice but to accept the fact there is going to be a named person, as I said, I doubt they will be able to choose who this named person will be. If they could, they could always choose their GP who you would think would be a pillar of society - http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Former-Wick-High-School-pupil-struck-off-as-GP-29092015.htm.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 11:46
But, when you are making a choice of school, when you are allocated a midwife or a health visitor parents know that this person will be a Named person. It's not being sneaked in as an afterthought so when accepting an allocated midwife or choosing a school it's part of the package. You are right though, you can't opt out of the Named Person but you CAN choose who does it when you choose the school or accept the particular health visitor.

I do share your concerns about what happens if the relationship between a particular NP breaks down and how parents are supported to build a relationship with another named person. Having once told a snooty health visitor not to come back lol and more recently having had to remove my child from one school to put him to another because the first school and the head teacher was just dreadful I have been delighted with the response from the new school and from Highland Council but I know that's not always the case. I would want councils to work with parents to make sure that it IS the case as much as possible

cptdodger
30-Sep-15, 12:33
When it comes to midwifes and health visitors, they are usually attached to a GP's surgery (they were when I had them anyway). Now, if you live in a City or a town that has more than one GP's surgery, if you are not happy with the service they provide you can move GP's. In my case, and I think this will be the case for a fair few people in the Highlands region if you live in a village that has only one surgery, you are stuck, you have no choice but to accept these people, I know because I tried to move back to my old surgery and was not allowed.

As for schools, and although this does not apply to England, I can only go by what the problem my daughter will have next year when my grandson starts secondary, to a certain extent this will be the same for high population areas in Scotland. My daughter has to choose a Secondary School for her son, she has a choice of I think three schools, she has already gone through Ofstead reports, looked at distance and so on. What she will then do next year is list her preferences 1st, 2nd and 3rd, my grandson will end up in the school that has capacity, it is as simple as that.

So in both instances, choice can be taken away from the parent when it comes to schools and healthcare.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 13:16
Yes CPT you are right. Choice can be taken away. Caithness is a prime example of that as far as secondary schools are concerned. However for me - that is a reason took at making sure the legislation is implemented in the best way possible not a reason to refuse to legislate.

BetterTogether
30-Sep-15, 14:05
A typical response tie people up in the detail discussing the legislations but always fails totally to explain why this legislation needs to be implemented In the first place.


What is happening in this country that is so dire that every child is required by law to have a state appointed guardian. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

squidge
30-Sep-15, 21:50
You want the background? The Named Persons Legislation has grown out of The system used in Scotland "Getting it Right for Every Child" - GIRFEC. This grew out of work that was done by the Labour Government in Scotland who produced this document - For Scotland's Children.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1141/0105219.pdf

This document highlighted clearly why there needed to be better services for children. There are approximately 1 million children under the age of 16 living in Scotland and a further 326,000 16 to 21-year-olds.
• The birth rate in Scotland is falling with around 55,000 live births in any one year. The number of births to unmarried parents continues to rise, with around 40% of all births in such families.
• Scotland has some of the highest rates of relative child poverty in the developed world. One third of Scotland’s households are in or on the margins of poverty. One in five children is entitled to free school meals, a benefit only available to those children whose carers receive Income Support or Income Based Job Seekers Allowance. 1 in every 10 babies born to families living in poverty has low birth weight; these babies are up to 12 times more likely to die in their first year of life. 52 of the 90 most deprived postcode areas in Scotland are in Glasgow.
• In Scotland 80 children under the age of 16 become homeless every day. In any one year approximately 11,500 young people aged 16 to 24 years old apply to their local authority for housing support as homeless – 1 in 4 of all homeless applications. There are currently 4,000 households in Scotland living in temporary accommodation and around 360,000 children in Scotland living in accommodation affected by dampness or condensation.
• In any one year approximately 8,000 children under the age of 16 live in families where parents are divorcing. Figures for relationship breakdown amongst the 1 in 5 adults who cohabit, but remain unmarried, are not available and so it is likely that many more children also live through family dislocation every year. 1 in 4 marriages in Scotland is now a re-marriage and 1 in 8 children will grow up in a stepfamily. There are 162,000 one- parent families in Scotland which together contain more than 280,000 children. 1 in 5 households are headed by a lone parent and 93% of the lone parents are women.
• Almost 40,000 exclusions are made in Scotland’s schools every year. More boys than girls are excluded.
• Fatal child pedestrian accident rates for 10 to 14 year olds in Scotland are amongst the highest in Europe. The poorest children are four times more likely to be killed in a road accident than the wealthiest. At home the poorest children are 9 times more likely to die in a fire. Little is known about children’s experiences as victims of crime although in 1 year ChildLine reports 2,600 calls from children reporting experiences of violence including being hit, punched, bitten and hit with implements such as belts and electric cables. 1 in 4 primary school pupils and 1 in 10 secondary pupils report having been victimised by bullies. Research conducted by ChildLine reports that Black/minority ethnic children “...endure unrelentingly openly racist harassment and bullying on a daily basis.”
• Around 100,000 children in Scotland live with domestic violence.
• The numbers of children reporting abuse is increasing. Approximately 6000 children are referred annually to social work departments in relation to child protection issues. In cases where a category of abuse is recorded around 70% of suspected perpetrators are either birth parents or parent substitutes. At March 1999 2,361 Scottish children were on the Child Protection Register.
• In Scotland around 9000 children run away every year, within this figure 1,600 children under the age of 11 years run away for the first time. 1 in 7 children who run away will be physically or sexually assaulted while away from home.
• There is a widely shared view that children with disabilities are not receiving the care, education or training opportunities they require. For many, education outwith the mainstream and their community can lead to isolation and exclusion.
• There is a high incidence of mental health problems amongst children and young people and access to appropriate services is variable, with particular concerns for the mental health needs of looked after children.
• The rate of teenage conception in Scotland is the highest in Europe.
• Around half of all 13 to 16 year olds undertake some kind of paid work. It is estimatedthat around 1 in 5 of these children will have an accident at work.
• Accurate figures for the numbers of children and young people who are refugees or asylum seekers in the UK are not known. Families are registered only in terms of the ‘principal applicant’ or head of family. At present there are about 5,000 asylum seekers in Glasgow of up to 40 nationalities including Afghan, Iraqi, Turkish and Albanian. In August this year, there were 1103 asylum seeker children in Glasgow schools. The experience of violence and harassment experienced by families has received much attention recently. -In terms of 16 and 17 year olds almost 1 in 4 is unemployed, with no automatic entitlement to benefits. In recent years two thirds of applications for Severe Hardship Payments have been repeat and continuous claims, indicating a core of extremely poor and vulnerable young people.
• In 1999/2000 63,857 referrals were made to the Children’s Hearing System. The majority of referrals are in connection with crimes or offences committed by children. Referrals in relation to care and protection issues are on the rise. While the Children’s Hearing system has the authority to retain 16 to 18 year olds who commit crimes within the system many of these young people become involved with the adult criminal justice system.
• Just over 11,000 children are looked after. Almost half are currently living at home. The greatest number of looked after children are aged 12 to 16 years. Recent reports have explored the continuing failure of many local authorities as ‘corporate parents’ to provide these young people with the care and education they are entitled to by law. Up to 75% of looked after children leave school with no formal qualifications. Less than 1% go to university. It is estimated that between 20% and 50% of young homeless people have been in the care of a local authority.

These are the reasons that GIRFEC was introduced and whilst these figures are from 2001 the situation in some instances may have improved and in others it may have deteriorated. This list however does reflect the reality of many children growing up in Scotland.
As the services progressed and following a number of high profile child abuse and murder cases like Danielle Reid and Daniel Pelka the legislation was examined again and the need for early intervention and a more robust system of linking professionals was highlighted. Highland Council piloted the Named Person Role in response to requests from families and young people for one professional to act as a central point of contact which will allow parents, children and professionals to access services when and where they are required. After reviewing outcomes from this pilot, the SG decided on Rolling out the Named Person Role as Part of the Children and young persons act.

The Named Person role has received cross party support. It has been supported by a number of very credible organisations working with Children in Scotland including Aberlour, Children 1st, NSPCC, action for Children, Together, SYP, Barnardos, Royal College of Nursing, parenting across Scotland, and others. This is not some bam pot idea but another step in what is a long process of work to ensure that children get the best chance possible of growing up healthy, happy and safe.
I hope this gives you a better understanding of why we need these types of legislation BT and where this has come from

Fulmar
01-Oct-15, 08:28
Thank you for this, Squidge.

BetterTogether
01-Oct-15, 08:53
Thanks for your long and very precise answer Squidge it certainly does show why certain at risks groups may need someone to help them but it still doesn't address the question I asked.

So I will repeat it.

Why does every child require a named person.


The statistics are great but saying 10,000 from a group of 100,000 here and 12,000 from a group of 10,000 here is just a bureaucratic way of saying there is a core target group a lot of the people you mention are from one central group.

The children living in abusive homes where domestic violence is are those that are likely to have mental health issue and run away so it's not as though we are dealing with the whole population just one group, admittedly some will fall outwith that core group but non the less it doesn't explain why in simple or complicated terms every single child in the country requires a named person.


Deal with that one main issue don't try and drown it with statistics as that's when you start to look authoritarian in your approach.


It's all very well naming charities who support it but I notice you haven't mentioned that every single agency tasked with implementing it is complaining the scheme is unworkable.

squidge
01-Oct-15, 12:05
Thanks for your long and very precise answer Squidge it certainly does show why certain at risks groups may need someone to help them but it still doesn't address the question I asked.

This is what you asked

To explain why this legislation needs to be implemented In the first place. i think my answer gives you a full and frank response to this question.



What is happening in this country that is so dire that every child is required by law to have a state appointed guardian. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Again - the reality of what some children live with is contained in my response. I cant answer the second part of your question becaus the named persons legislation does not implement a state appointed guardian.




So I will repeat it.

Why does every child require a named person.


The statistics are great but saying 10,000 from a group of 100,000 here and 12,000 from a group of 10,000 here is just a bureaucratic way of saying there is a core target group a lot of the people you mention are from one central group.

The children living in abusive homes where domestic violence is are those that are likely to have mental health issue and run away so it's not as though we are dealing with the whole population just one group, admittedly some will fall outwith that core group but non the less it doesn't explain why in simple or complicated terms every single child in the country requires a named person.

Deal with that one main issue don't try and drown it with statistics as that's when you start to look authoritarian in your approach.:roll:

Ok lets spell it out.

Every child doesn't need a named persons intervention but every child should have access to a named person. it seems that you cant understand this BT. A Named person will not be required to do anything in the vast majority of cases. Bit like your dentist. You go to your dentist he checks your mouth and he does nothing unless you need him to do something. If you have a toothache then you go to see him and he fixes it. In the case of the named person the headteacher or guidance teacher will simply do their normal work with most children, their usual "pastoral care" but where there is a concern then they will be required to act and where a child or a family needs help the child will know that they can go to their named person to access that help. What is it about that which bothers you.

Your suggestion that somehow this only happens to a core group might be right in some cases but misses the point. All these children are in a variety of ways "at risk" but how do we assess that BT? How do we spot when a child is at risk? How to we share that information? How do we ensure that agencies work together to do the best possible for the child? How do we know that a child moving areas has started at school and not simply disappeared? How does the whole picture from police activity, health activity,school, social work involvement get put together? Who is the central point of contact to ensure that incidents are joined up to allow a whole picture to be understood?

This is why we have a named person for every child.


You say that not every child should have access to a named person. Lets think about that. That viewpoint suggests that somehow by some mysterious process the "good" and "well parented" children should be excluded from this act? But how do you do that? What then happens when a child from what you might term a "nice" family is having problems? No one sees. no one notices because they assume that these "nice" families" don't have any of the problems mentioned above. That child is left, ignored, forgotten and gets no support until maybe it is too late. Any family at all can have problems, any child from any background,, living in any situation can face mental health issues, be a carer, suffer abuse, be bullied, get into trouble with the police, be facing domestic violence, have an alcoholic parent, fall into taking drugs, Any child at all and often NO ONE knows.

Giving every child access to a named person, ensuring that concerns about any child are noted and explored where necessary, whoever they are, rich poor, disabled, healthy, is trying to ensure that EVERY child gets the help and support that they need when they need it - that may very well be in most cases none at all and that is explained in the legislation but if it IS required, whoever that child is whatever their background is they are more likely to be picked up under this system than the previous one. Surely thats a good thing.



It's all very well naming charities who support it but I notice you haven't mentioned that every single agency tasked with implementing it is complaining the scheme is unworkable. Hang on - its been working in Highland for at least 5 years so I dont think that is actually true is it. We are back to implementation issues. This legislation is currently being rolled out across Scotland and being implemented in places where it is new. There will be problems and there will be issues to resolve but it is clearly not unworkable if we have been working with it for such a long time.

BetterTogether
01-Oct-15, 12:57
Well nicely phrased and turned around but whilst I accept that some children require some intervention I disagree wholeheartedly with unnecessary state intervention and to that point you have failed to convince me that the scheme is anything more than the state intruding where it is not required.

cptdodger
01-Oct-15, 14:07
Too me, I'm afraid it is much like the Scottish Government is presuming every single child at some point in their lives are going to face difficulties (whatever that entails) and it is just not the case. The cost must be astronomical to put this in place. From what I can understand the "Named People" are not getting any extra training, that is not over and above the training they receive for the jobs they are doing presently.

What happens when it is the state doing the abusing like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34405947, the cover ups and denials were frankly shocking. It is estimated the enquiry will take over four years to gather all the evidence. You can't tell me the children never saw a Health Visitor, GP or teacher in all that time, so what happened? Why should the named people that are in those professions be trusted with this now?

squidge
01-Oct-15, 16:15
Well nicely phrased and turned around but whilst I accept that some children require some intervention I disagree wholeheartedly with unnecessary state intervention and to that point you have failed to convince me that the scheme is anything more than the state intruding where it is not required.

Really? Are you sure lol? That is absolutely fine BT. I never set out to do so. I simply set out to put an alternative opinion. You were never going to agree with me anyway.

CPT this is the inquiry into historic sex abuse and these cases are part of the reason why we have over the last 10 years been working to a stronger more integrated framework. Many professionals believe that precisely because agencies worked in isolation, because sharing of information was poor, because children had nowhere to turn there were opportunities to take advantage. The legislation has developed to make that more difficult and the names person builds on that,

cptdodger
01-Oct-15, 17:33
CPT this is the inquiry into historic sex abuse and these cases are part of the reason why we have over the last 10 years been working to a stronger more integrated framework. Many professionals believe that precisely because agencies worked in isolation, because sharing of information was poor, because children had nowhere to turn there were opportunities to take advantage. The legislation has developed to make that more difficult and the names person builds on that,

The point being, they should have only had to tell one person - an adult that should have done something, it really didn't matter that agencies worked in isolation because the adult (s) they told should have gone straight to the Police.

squidge
01-Oct-15, 17:41
Agreed, but I'm not sure how that undermines the case for named persons legislation

cptdodger
01-Oct-15, 18:43
Because it is a terrible state of affairs if we need legislation to make people behave like decent human beings.

BetterTogether
11-Oct-15, 17:32
So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20151011/281599534330648/TextView

cptdodger
11-Oct-15, 18:22
So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20151011/281599534330648/TextView


And this is exactly what I was trying to get across.

It says in the article she is to undergo treatment, but for what exactly? Is that just not the way she is inclined?

weezer 316
12-Oct-15, 16:41
So the named person scheme isn't even properly off the ground yet but here we have the first conviction of a named person. The woman in question was in charge of 200 children and is now on the child sex offenders register. Doesn't inspire much confidence despite all the rhetoric and constant oh it couldn't possibly happen posts.

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20151011/281599534330648/TextView


Your view on this is myopic to say the least.

First off, the roll out of a national scheme like this will undoubtedly have issues such as this arise. No human is perfect so wanting any system designed by them to be so is just stupidity on your part.

Secondly, I can honestly say something like this when I was younger would have saved me no end of grief. I was never classed as at risk child nor ever referred to social workers despite at times going days with electricity and having handfuls of dried cornflakes for eating several times a month because my mum drank all our money, Who should I have talked to? I had no idea. Alcoholism seemed to be a socially acceptable way to live in poverty and the system didn't seem to catch me despite the fact I clearly was at risk.

The state should, and in fact must, provide a point of contact to raise issues with. The reality is that if there is something a child cant raise with a parent, or does and is ignored, that is obviously wrong. Your insistence that some peoples dignity cant be afronted to help children that find themselves in the situation I did is absurd. It's not only absurd but is in fact incredibly backwards and places children already at risk at further risk simply so you can mouth off on a forum on a high horse.

You likely recognise this but I doubt you will change your public position.

BetterTogether
12-Oct-15, 17:28
You've made a point about your own personal circumstance which undoubtedly should have required some intervention, but have failed totally to make any worthy point why every child regardless of circumstances requires a named person.

There is very little progressive about unecessary and unwarranted state intervention in family lives which in no way require it all it does show is a totalitarian mindset.

No one has made any attempt to say that those who require intervention should not have it but a poorly drafted hastily conceived piece of legislation that has already placed children at risk surely isn't the way to go.

weezer 316
13-Oct-15, 12:36
That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

cptdodger
13-Oct-15, 13:41
That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

Well, let's just hope the children that find themselves in the same predicament you were in, do not end up with somebody like this (http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sc...30648/TextView (http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20151011/281599534330648/TextView)) because "people" like her pray on vulnerable children. It is not a case anymore of it might happen - it has happened.

BetterTogether
13-Oct-15, 14:42
That is the point. You simply do not know who needs the help and the system at present sint going to catch everyone. If this is totalitarian in your eyes then your view that many many children should be left in a situation like I found myself in is simply based in a fundamentlaist view of what the govt should and shouldnt do.

Frankly, their rights override yours in this instance and I am glad the SNP see it that way also.

I shall refer to you article 8 as the SNP are such a pro EU party. That is the same article that the court case currently going through the courts is based on. Everyone's rights to privacy and safety from unecessary state intervention are enshrined in that article. So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention is a fallacy. Mind it's very easy for people of a totalitarian nature to justify the gradual erosion of others rights then we end up with the kind of states so widely condemned worldwide.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

weezer 316
13-Oct-15, 14:57
I shall refer to you article 8 as the SNP are such a pro EU party. That is the same article that the court case currently going through the courts is based on. Everyone's rights to privacy and safety from unecessary state intervention are enshrined in that article. So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention is a fallacy. Mind it's very easy for people of a totalitarian nature to justify the gradual erosion of others rights then we end up with the kind of states so widely condemned worldwide.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf


You just made that up. Literally. "So your assertions that a normal well balanced family with no issues require state intervention"....where did I say that?? Stop making rubbish up becuase your argument is awful! Sure you didnt vote yes last year?

You provide a point fo contact for child x. That child raises concerns they cant/wont with family. If they raise nothing, nothign happens. If they do, thing can happen. In what scenario is that interfering with a normal well balanced family? And if a concern was raised, why was it raised? That seems to escape you.

cptdodger
13-Oct-15, 15:42
And this is what I cannot get my head around. An appointed person could be a teacher, let's say, so the child/children go to this appointed person who is their teacher and tells him or her they are having whatever problems they are having. Are you telling me the teacher (appointed person) will only help the child because there is now legislation in place to say they have to ? Would this teacher (or whoever) before they became an appointed person, not have helped the child/children that approached them, just because they, by law didn't have to?

weezer 316
13-Oct-15, 16:03
And this is what I cannot get my head around. An appointed person could be a teacher, let's say, so the child/children go to this appointed person who is their teacher and tells him or her they are having whatever problems they are having. Are you telling me the teacher (appointed person) will only help the child because there is now legislation in place to say they have to ? Would this teacher (or whoever) before they became an appointed person, not have helped the child/children that approached them, just because they, by law didn't have to?

You cant get your head around it? Or dont want to?

No is the answer. Its the fact the child know said person has a responsibility towards them in these matters.

I dont even see how you could think what you thought in the first place. Its pretty clear where this legislation differs.

cptdodger
13-Oct-15, 16:16
You cant get your head around it? Or dont want to?

No is the answer. Its the fact the child know said person has a responsibility towards them in these matters.

I dont even see how you could think what you thought in the first place. Its pretty clear where this legislation differs.

It's not a case of "I don't want to".

No is the answer to what?

Any profession that an appointed person is in, before this legislation was introduced had a responsibility towards the child's welfare, i.e Teachers, doctor's health visitors and so on.

As I said before it is a sad state of affairs that legislation has had to be introduced to make adults act as caring human beings.

BetterTogether
13-Oct-15, 17:30
Weezer your position is self defeating, you claim that if a child sees a named person and there is nothing to report then nothing happens no harm, no foul, so to speak. What you miss is that it's just wasted time, money and created a scenario where a young child may start to worry that there is something wrong, or it may allow a predatory or somewhat over zealous person to conflate a minor issue into something more serious. You seem to miss the point that there is hardly any redress in this system also it encourages your children to keep secrets from their parent. The system as it is has too many loopholes in to be workable and insufficient safeguards to protect a child from a predatory adult who has ingratiated themselves into it to gain access to children. In other posts you complain about state money being wasted but on this post you appear to say it's ok just to waste money. Not only is the legislation a gross intrusion by the state it is so poorly written that it opens itself to a myriad of abuses from within.

weezer 316
14-Oct-15, 15:40
It's not a case of "I don't want to".

No is the answer to what?

Any profession that an appointed person is in, before this legislation was introduced had a responsibility towards the child's welfare, i.e Teachers, doctor's health visitors and so on.

As I said before it is a sad state of affairs that legislation has had to be introduced to make adults act as caring human beings.

Did you even bother to read the answer? here it is for you again.

Its the fact the child know said person has a responsibility towards them in these matters.

weezer 316
14-Oct-15, 15:47
Weezer your position is self defeating, you claim that if a child sees a named person and there is nothing to report then nothing happens no harm, no foul, so to speak. What you miss is that it's just wasted time, money and created a scenario where a young child may start to worry that there is something wrong, or it may allow a predatory or somewhat over zealous person to conflate a minor issue into something more serious. You seem to miss the point that there is hardly any redress in this system also it encourages your children to keep secrets from their parent. The system as it is has too many loopholes in to be workable and insufficient safeguards to protect a child from a predatory adult who has ingratiated themselves into it to gain access to children. In other posts you complain about state money being wasted but on this post you appear to say it's ok just to waste money. Not only is the legislation a gross intrusion by the state it is so poorly written that it opens itself to a myriad of abuses from within.


Christ.


What you miss is that it's just wasted time, money and created a scenario where a young child may start to worry that there is something wrong

OK your definition of waste and mine would appear to differ. Id rather spend it ehre than on pensioners who are loaded.


or it may allow a predatory or somewhat over zealous person to conflate a minor issue into something more serious

It might. This happens all the time anyway. Hardly a reason, more a whine from you.


You seem to miss the point that there is hardly any redress in this system also it encourages your children to keep secrets from their parent

In my glass half full world it might encourage them to say something to someone as they cant/dont want to with their parents.



In other posts you complain about state money being wasted but on this post you appear to say it's ok just to waste money. Not only is the legislation a gross intrusion by the state it is so poorly written that it opens itself to a myriad of abuses from within.

Yes I do. Again my view is is the money is better spent here than on pensioners bus passes or TV licences, that's a waste, this isnt.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 16:12
It would appear weezer you have some deep seated issues with all the now ageing population who have helped create this country you now live in and benefit from. Those generations that have built a democracy and decent standard of living for the vast majority of the population.
Unlike the younger generations who have sacrificed very little or nothing but have the most overblown sense of self entitlement of any generation before them.
You've neither had to endure the hell of years at war, the impoverishment of rationing, the lack of basic amenities which you now take for granted,the poor working practices and diets of earlier generations the lives of those you now rally against.
Instead you bleat how tough you've had it when in reality you've probably suffered a great deal less than those generations who went before you and built the country and way of life you now complain so much against.

You should remember if nothing that not everyone wants needs or desires to live in a country where the state intrudes into every aspect of a persons life.

This may suit or seem preferable to you personally for whatever reasons or political ideology you may hold but to a large percentage of the population it is neither wanted or required.

You can huff and puff all you like but rest assured once the SNP fall out of favour with the voters in Scotland this piece of unwarranted state intrusion will vanish.

cptdodger
14-Oct-15, 16:15
Did you even bother to read the answer? here it is for you again.

Its the fact the child know said person has a responsibility towards them in these matters.

I have no idea where or when you grew up. Let me make it plain for you seeing as you are now bordering on abusive.

All children should know that they can approach their teacher, doctor, school nurse, whoever if they have a problem. I went to school in the late 60's and 70's, if any of us were having problems we would and did speak to an adult, be it a teacher, guidance teacher, but somebody.

The fact that presumably you never told another adult about the problems you were experiencing is beyond me. All these people you could tell but didn't, be it your teacher or whoever, are the same professions that are now "appointed persons".

If you didn't think they would help you then, why should they help any other child now ? Oh yes, legislation. They are being forced to be decent human beings.

weezer 316
14-Oct-15, 16:52
It would appear weezer you have some deep seated issues with all the now ageing population who have helped create this country you now live in and benefit from. Those generations that have built a democracy and decent standard of living for the vast majority of the population.
Unlike the younger generations who have sacrificed very little or nothing but have the most overblown sense of self entitlement of any generation before them.
You've neither had to endure the hell of years at war, the impoverishment of rationing, the lack of basic amenities which you now take for granted,the poor working practices and diets of earlier generations the lives of those you now rally against.
Instead you bleat how tough you've had it when in reality you've probably suffered a great deal less than those generations who went before you and built the country and way of life you now complain so much against.

You should remember if nothing that not everyone wants needs or desires to live in a country where the state intrudes into every aspect of a persons life.

This may suit or seem preferable to you personally for whatever reasons or political ideology you may hold but to a large percentage of the population it is neither wanted or required.

You can huff and puff all you like but rest assured once the SNP fall out of favour with the voters in Scotland this piece of unwarranted state intrusion will vanish.

Mate if your generation had my ones intelligence, belief in social mobility and view of tomorrow,which given both govt policies and social attitudes on everything from gay marriage to things lile the final pension schemes you agree are nonsense and utterly usustainable, we likely wouldnt be in this situation.

it nothing to do with my entitlement, on the contrary I suggest we raise taxes and put the onus on the individual to provide from themselves outside of the states clearly defined roles in areas like healthcare and schooling (im probably more right wing than you here except I am not dogmatic and dont view govt as bad and too big ).

Now, back to the point seeing as you have had yours handed back to you on a platter. Whats more important, a system that helps protect some vulnerable but seemingly invisible children, or bus passes for over 60s earning double my yearly wage in pensions? You tell me? If its anything other than the former your an ideologue and should stick to mouthing daily mail party pieces as the latter is clearly a bigger waste yet you bang on here about th SNP wasting x y and Z. Whilst they certainly do and I will largely be glad to see the back of them, you cannot possibly criticise this is a waste as much as you have done and ignore other areas of waste. And you can find a pile of things like this, say the council tax freeze, corporate tax exemptions or expenses for MP's full stop. yet you NEVER whinge about these.

Like I say, if you think its a waste, fine. but mind who will be picking up the bill for all the waste you lot created long after you are gone. This "waste" I am perfectly happy to fund.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 16:55
Mate if your generation had my ones intelligence, belief in social mobility and view of tomorrow,which given both govt policies and social attitudes on everything from gay marriage to things lile the final pension schemes you agree are nonsense and utterly usustainable, we likely wouldnt be in this situation.

it nothing to do with my entitlement, on the contrary I suggest we raise taxes and put the onus on the individual to provide from themselves outside of the states clearly defined roles in areas like healthcare and schooling (im probably more right wing than you here except I am not dogmatic and dont view govt as bad and too big ).

Now, back to the point seeing as you have had yours handed back to you on a platter. Whats more important, a system that helps protect some vulnerable but seemingly invisible children, or bus passes for over 60s earning double my yearly wage in pensions? You tell me? If its anything other than the former your an ideologue and should stick to mouthing daily mail party pieces as the latter is clearly a bigger waste yet you bang on here about th SNP wasting x y and Z. Whilst they certainly do and I will largely be glad to see the back of them, you cannot possibly criticise this is a waste as much as you have done and ignore other areas of waste. And you can find a pile of things like this, say the council tax freeze, corporate tax exemptions or expenses for MP's full stop. yet you NEVER whinge about these.

Like I say, if you think its a waste, fine. but mind who will be picking up the bill for all the waste you lot created long after you are gone. This "waste" I am perfectly happy to fund.

the council tax freeze, corporate tax exemptions or expenses for MP's full stop plus all non means tested freebies......agree with you.

weezer 316
14-Oct-15, 16:56
I have no idea where or when you grew up. Let me make it plain for you seeing as you are now bordering on abusive.

All children should know that they can approach their teacher, doctor, school nurse, whoever if they have a problem. I went to school in the late 60's and 70's, if any of us were having problems we would and did speak to an adult, be it a teacher, guidance teacher, but somebody.

The fact that presumably you never told another adult about the problems you were experiencing is beyond me. All these people you could tell but didn't, be it your teacher or whoever, are the same professions that are now "appointed persons".

If you didn't think they would help you then, why should they help any other child now ? Oh yes, legislation. They are being forced to be decent human beings.

I grew up in various housing estates in Glasgow in the 80s until I was 10, when I moved here. I'm not sure how thats relevant though to any points.

Now...critical point....If you didn't think they would help you then, why should they help any other child now ? That in a nutshell is your confusion there. I didnt think anyone would. it doesnt mean they WOULDNT have does it? I was a child. You dont understand things like this at 10 years old. Im sure now some would have. The CRITICAL difference is I would now be aware this person here is responsible for you as well. That, in a childs mind, is crucial. I hope, sincelerly that makes sense and you dont seem to get the point I am trying to make.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 17:24
Mate if your generation had my ones intelligence, belief in social mobility and view of tomorrow,which given both govt policies and social attitudes on everything from gay marriage to things lile the final pension schemes you agree are nonsense and utterly usustainable, we likely wouldnt be in this situation.

it nothing to do with my entitlement, on the contrary I suggest we raise taxes and put the onus on the individual to provide from themselves outside of the states clearly defined roles in areas like healthcare and schooling (im probably more right wing than you here except I am not dogmatic and dont view govt as bad and too big ).

Now, back to the point seeing as you have had yours handed back to you on a platter. Whats more important, a system that helps protect some vulnerable but seemingly invisible children, or bus passes for over 60s earning double my yearly wage in pensions? You tell me? If its anything other than the former your an ideologue and should stick to mouthing daily mail party pieces as the latter is clearly a bigger waste yet you bang on here about th SNP wasting x y and Z. Whilst they certainly do and I will largely be glad to see the back of them, you cannot possibly criticise this is a waste as much as you have done and ignore other areas of waste. And you can find a pile of things like this, say the council tax freeze, corporate tax exemptions or expenses for MP's full stop. yet you NEVER whinge about these.

Like I say, if you think its a waste, fine. but mind who will be picking up the bill for all the waste you lot created long after you are gone. This "waste" I am perfectly happy to fund.

ok let's talk about social mobility I was born in inner London in a tenament building then spent my formative years living above various fire stations while both my parents went out to work. I never went to a public school but just a normal comprehensive my parent scraped together enough money to put a deposit on a small bungalow my father worked away for years in order to pay for things. We had periods when he was made redundant and we went without. We had times when we lived by candlelight and food was scarce I wore hand me down clothes from my cousins and other family members. I left school with some good grades and went on to college but had to leave and go to work because my family couldn't afford to support me through college. I joined the armed forces did my service and when I left found menial work and went to night school to re- educate myself with qualifications that would enable me to earn decent money. I own my house and have a number of private pensions. So don't give me a lecture on social mobility or paying my way, sponging off the state. All you've done is made yourself look a fool by making some rash and presumptuous assumptions. You claim to be more right wing than me fine have at it if it makes you feel good but while you insist of taking a position of wanting state interference when non is required to me you'll have a frighteningly totalitarian mentality just like the leaders of the party you support blinded by hatred and ideology.
Never forget your generations so called liberal ideas are built on the battles my generation and the ones before fought and won for you. Your generation thinks it's achieved so much but all its done is tinker with a system that's had most of the big battles fought for it.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 17:28
If you took time to read my posts you'll see I do criticise council tax freezes and excessive public spending regardless of which sector it's in.

cptdodger
14-Oct-15, 21:31
I grew up in various housing estates in Glasgow in the 80s until I was 10, when I moved here. I'm not sure how thats relevant though to any points.

Now...critical point....If you didn't think they would help you then, why should they help any other child now ? That in a nutshell is your confusion there. I didnt think anyone would. it doesnt mean they WOULDNT have does it? I was a child. You dont understand things like this at 10 years old. Im sure now some would have. The CRITICAL difference is I would now be aware this person here is responsible for you as well. That, in a childs mind, is crucial. I hope, sincelerly that makes sense and you dont seem to get the point I am trying to make.

Where and when you grew up is relevant because schools and the nature of schooling over the years has changed.

The reason you think I am confused is, where you grew up and went to school, obviously nobody ever intimated to you that there were people at your school you could go to if you were struggling, for whatever reason. I must have been very fortunate that from an early age I was taught that if there were problems at home there was somebody that I, and everybody else could turn to.

That is why I could not understand why all of a sudden legislation has had to be brought in now, when as far as I am concerned there have been people doing this "appointed persons" role anyway, and without legislation.

squidge
15-Oct-15, 08:35
Not only would Weezer as a child know that he had someone there for him but it seems to me that once again you guys are missing many of the points of this legislation.

When Weezer was a child there was no system for measuring whether a child was at risk. It would have been down to an individual teacher or other person to use their "gut feeling" to decide whether a referral was appropriate. So his teacher might have noticed that he was "unhappy" but there was no way of quantifying that in any referral to another agency. We have that now.

Teachers have, as cpt, points out, a duty of care- they always have had but up until now they have not had tools to ensure that any referral is acted on. This meant in Weezers situation, even if a teacher had referred him to social services, there was no mechanism for ensuring that was acted upon.

Today, When a named person makes a referral, they are the central point, they have a role in ensuring that agencies work together. That was never the case before.

In addition, if Weezer had caused concerns elsewhere, there were no mechanisms for dealing with that information, looking at it as a whole.

As BT said earlier in the thread a Single incident isn't necessarily a worry. A hungry child? When is a child not hungry. A quiet child? Some children are shy. A black eye? Well being hit in the face with a football might do that. Police called to a disturbance at the house? Sometimes people fall out? None of these things in isolation would necessarily be a worry but if the information was passed to a named person and they saw the whole picture then it may look a little different.

Today, with these issues would be passed to the named person. They will have a picture of what is happening that was not available before. and this means that action can be taken to get to the bottom of what is going on. That didn't happen before this legislation.


As for the woman in the newspaper. It seems from reading this article that her behaviour came to light when she was appointed to a promoted role and was on probation, supervised in this role at all times. Doesnt that show that the system of promoting teachers, supervision, monitoring actually works? Paedophiles are notoriously crafty and will be very clever in disguising their behaviour. We need to be vigilant and I'm sure that parents at this school will be very glad the system worked and she was caught.

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 09:35
When I was a child the most sadistic intolerant people I ever came across where the teachers.

Thankfully corporal punishment has been made illegal now so they can no longer dish out their forms of punishment on young children.

Flying black board erases, the plimsol, strap and a totally mind boggling aray of canes where to be found in all the schools I attended.
Of all the people as child is of entrusted anything to would of been a teacher.
They managed to dish out more intolerance more injustice and more pain than anyone outside of school ever did.

During my later school years I was frequently expelled from biology class and sent almost weekly for six of the best never fully understanding what I'd done wrong, some fifteen years after leaving school I found out that the School Bully who I had hit back and handed over my dinner money to anymore, ending up with him having a fat lip. His mother was in a relationship with my Biology teacher who had been punishing me at her behest.
Thank god he wasn't a named person with the new powers.

Then we have the frequent lessons spattered with their left wing ideology being spouted off during lessons when they should of been teaching the curriculum.
Teachers have a long history of intolerance to anything other than they want to hear or the control they wish to exert.
Are they trustworthy absolutely not, any child who falls foul of a teacher is in for a very rough ride during their school.
Does the legislation do anything to protect them from the teachers who dish out informal punishment for any reason they see fit outwith parental control, no it doesn't, in fact what it does it give teachers, headmasters a frightening new way to inflict whatever damage they see fit on a child that happens not to fit their idea of normal.
Despite already having seen one instance of a named person with an unhealthy interest in children and the almost weekly cases of teachers having sexual relationships with children there are those that wish to give these people even more control.
Teachers should be there to teach not exert control over a family. Squidge says the system worked as the named person was caught and yes I totally agree paedophiles are notoriously craft, duplicitous and will seek to cover their actions, she says the system worked as the person was caught, I say the system failed as the person was allowed access to children in the first place.

golach
15-Oct-15, 09:55
When I was a child the most sadistic intolerant people I ever came across where the teachers.

Thankfully corporal punishment has been made illegal now so they can no longer dish out their forms of punishment on young children.

Flying black board erases, the plimsol, strap and a totally mind boggling aray of canes where to be found in all the schools I attended.
Of all the people as child is of entrusted anything to would of been a teacher.
They managed to dish out more intolerance more injustice and more pain than anyone outside of school ever did


totally agree BT, all the above happened when i was at school also, but it never did me any lasting harm. I had strict parents also, again, no harm became me, I think I grew up as a normal person, never had the poiice at my door, sailed the world, learned many things, married , then became a parent to 2 sons, they have both grown up, married themselves and hold down good jobs, even 3 of my 4 granddaughters are in their 20's with good jobs, one is still at school. My point is that this was all done without the need of a named person, I find this Snp scheme redundant and stupid. WHY is it needed???

squidge
15-Oct-15, 10:20
How old are you two? You are both older than me and therefore you are both Old enough to know that what happened then doesn't happen now.

Or maybe, you are SO old that you have no idea what is happening in schools today, don't understand the training teachers undergo, don't know how today's recruitment practices work, haven't set foot in a school for years lol.

You know what, many of these comments mirror the argument that I heard at the NO2NP meeting I attended.


It goes something like this ....


MY family doesn't need a named person. We are a NICE family with GOOD morals and we are GOOD parents.

SOME families of course need help or action but that's THEM. THEY should have a named person WE should not have a named person.

Thing is, how do you know which family is which. Go on, both of you I'd be delighted for you to tell me how you can tell "them" from "us"?

The named person is a universal service available to every child when needed. If it's not needed it does nothing. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 10:38
But it isn't used when needed it's in place from before the child is born until they are Eighteen.

There is no choice as to whom the named person is, there are no easy recourses if the named person is a problem .

The measures used to decide if a child is doing well as so loose as to make them virtually unworkable.

Let's take one small part how do you define how active a child is on whose definition will they be measured.

How do you quantify the spirituality of a child, if the named person is a devout Christian and the parents atheists, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness then conflict is already in place.
How do you define if a child is respected if the child is naturally of a more argumentative nature and wants everything their own way is it not respecting a child to set strict controls on some of their actions which could lead to a named person becoming involved.
Allowing children a say in what they watch on TV how they have their room decorated all very nice in theory unless the child wants the unaffordable or decides they should watch inappropriate things which the parents object to.

How do you define if a child's achieving surely that is down to individual ability not some pre ordained prescriptive legislations.
Or safe does that means a child who is more adventurous can be defined as unsafe because of some of their activities. It's all very well to say " ah well " or say that it's all covered but in reality the definitions being used are so wide they can be easily used to apportion any view you wish to them.

Again you use failed logic to think I haven't set foot in a school for years then the demeaning " lol " all it shows is how you try to belittle anyone who puts up any rejection of SNP policy.
The truth is this piece of legislation is illiberal and another sign of how the SNP considers every parent in Scotland incapable of raising their own child.
It shows how little trust they place in the very people who vote them in to power.

We trust you to vote for us but not to care for your children.


How do you measure the following.

‘assessed’ according to the extent to which the child is ‘safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included’.

cptdodger
15-Oct-15, 10:45
How old are you two? You are both older than me and therefore you are both Old enough to know that what happened then doesn't happen now.

Or maybe, you are SO old that you have no idea what is happening in schools today, don't understand the training teachers undergo, don't know how today's recruitment practices work, haven't set foot in a school for years lol.

You know what, many of these comments mirror the argument that I heard at the NO2NP meeting I attended.


It goes something like this ....


MY family doesn't need a named person. We are a NICE family with GOOD morals and we are GOOD parents.

SOME families of course need help or action but that's THEM. THEY should have a named person WE should not have a named person.

Thing is, how do you know which family is which. Go on, both of you I'd be delighted for you to tell me how you can tell "them" from "us"?

The named person is a universal service available to every child when needed. If it's not needed it does nothing. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.


Okay, just say a child is being sexually abused, and that child has been threatened that if they EVER tell anybody either they or members of their family will be hurt. No amount of named people will be able to help that child. That is just one scenario.

Unless "named people" are going to get extra training, over and above the training they receive for their day to day job, I mean trained to become a named person, because if they are not, then if they or whoever we are talking about could not see a child was being neglected/ abused and so on, they will not be able to now unless they interrogate every child.

As for neglect and abuse (not necesserily sexual) what if the parent / guardian tells the child if they say anything they will be taken into care ?

The point being, you cannot make a child talk unless they want to.

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 10:50
I had been involved in secondary schools all over the highlands for 7 years during the 2002-2009 period, delivering as part of a team The Hot House Youth Challenge programme ( basically an ICT ideas / innovation development project, one of the sponsors being Microsoft, our company were a Microft Gold partner, hence my partial involvement in the programme ) and experienced all kinds of teachers / heads etc....some ( mostly younger teachers ) were very enthusiastic in their duties, others were "dodgers" doing as little to get by as possible, others were clearly burnt out as its the nature of the profession ie start gung ho and enthusiastic when your younger and then through time / expereince / usually bad management / messed about by HC / stupid curriculum changes etc become jaded and burnt out and generally disinterested, doing your time until an early retiement. Teachers have their own problems and issues to deal with, and you cannot guarantee that 100% of teachers will effectively engage in the named persons process, they are human after all and no system is ever perfect.

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:06
How old are you two? You are both older than me and therefore you are both Old enough to know that what happened then doesn't happen now.

Or maybe, you are SO old that you have no idea what is happening in schools today, don't understand the training teachers undergo, don't know how today's recruitment practices work, haven't set foot in a school for years lol.

You know what, many of these comments mirror the argument that I heard at the NO2NP meeting I attended.


It goes something like this ....


MY family doesn't need a named person. We are a NICE family with GOOD morals and we are GOOD parents.

SOME families of course need help or action but that's THEM. THEY should have a named person WE should not have a named person.

Thing is, how do you know which family is which. Go on, both of you I'd be delighted for you to tell me how you can tell "them" from "us"?

The named person is a universal service available to every child when needed. If it's not needed it does nothing. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.

Do you not think that you remarks in your post can be seen from some quarters as being cheeky, condesceding and dare I say it " know it all"......"Or maybe, you are SO old that you have no idea what is happening in schools today, don't understand the training teachers undergo, don't know how today's recruitment practices work, haven't set foot in a school for years lol".

When was the last time you engaged with a secondary school yourself ???

squidge
15-Oct-15, 11:11
There is training for promoted posts. There is CPD, there is child protection training and a variety of other training that teachers do, particularly when they are in a promoted post.

This is is not simply about child sexual abuse though is it? And whilst they may not ask a child in that situation may display a change in behaviour which is more likely to be identified and acted upon today than it ever was.

BT you havent answered my question - how would you choose which families should have a named person and which should not.

The indicators are exactly that. You would assess a child by looking at the overall picture. Indeed schools work towards these for every child in everything they do. They are part of the aims and values of every school. Only when a concern is raised would an individual child be "assessed" in greater depth.

I have two happy healthy children at primary school. P2 and P4. What do you think the Named Person is doing with or to my children on a day to day basis that should give me cause for concern.

When I was pregnant with my last child I was both old (45) and fat - both causes for concern. My named person was the midwife what do you think the midwife did as a named person that I should have been alarmed about?

Once Fi was born and I had another named person - the health visitor what do you think was happening with that health visitor as my child's named person?

squidge
15-Oct-15, 11:15
Do you not think that you remarks in your post can be seen from some quarters as being cheeky, condesceding and dare I say it " know it all"......"Or maybe, you are SO old that you have no idea what is happening in schools today, don't understand the training teachers undergo, don't know how today's recruitment practices work, haven't set foot in a school for years lol".

When was the last time you engaged with a secondary school yourself ???




Pfft I already know you can't take a wee joke - was the LoL not enough of a sign it was a wee jest? I don't know it all Rob as you and BT are fond of telling me at every available opportunity. You often point out how stupid supporters of the SNP are and clearly don't understand economics and BT thinks that no one who has not been in the armed forces and serving all over the world knows nothing anout anything.

A secondary school? Well after 15 years of being involved in secondary schools my middle boy left Two years ago. You?

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:20
There is training for promoted posts. There is CPD, there is child protection training and a variety of other training that teachers do, particularly when they are in a promoted post.

This is is not simply about child sexual abuse though is it? And whilst they may not ask a child in that situation may display a change in behaviour which is more likely to be identified and acted upon today than it ever was.

BT you havent answered my question - how would you choose which families should have a named person and which should not.

The indicators are exactly that. You would assess a child by looking at the overall picture. Indeed schools work towards these for every child in everything they do. They are part of the aims and values of every school. Only when a concern is raised would an individual child be "assessed" in greater depth.

I have two happy healthy children at primary school. P2 and P4. What do you think the Named Person is doing with or to my children on a day to day basis that should give me cause for concern.

When I was pregnant with my last child I was both old (45) and fat - both causes for concern. My named person was the midwife what do you think the midwife did as a named person that I should have been alarmed about?

Once Fi was born and I had another named person - the health visitor what do you think was happening with that health visitor as my child's named person?

You state : There is training for promoted posts. There is CPD, there is child protection training and a variety of other training that teachers do, particularly when they are in a promoted post" : there is a vast difference between being made aware through training and actually competently discharging these "skills" for real, as I said in my post teachers / promoted posts as well ( they have the worst of both worlds ie delaing with the SMT : senior management team and line managing their staff with their issues ) have a lot on their plate they are human and have issues as well. Time is another scarce reource will involved teachers, promoted or otherwise really have the tme on top of alll other duties to activley see thnigs through ie particpate in "a joined up approach" ???? As I said fine in theory but no system is perfect and when it comes down to it education and teachers ( of all levels ) have been a political football for long enough. You cannot guarantee that 100% of teachers will effectively engage in the named persons process. JUst my opinions mind.

squidge
15-Oct-15, 11:26
You are absolutely right Rob. You can't. And no system is perfect. But is the answer to do nothing? We have in place now a system and we will need to train, monitor, motivate, measure performance and develop this service as it goes along. You know how that works Rob. I bet you do that every day with your staff and your company. Do you decide not to implement change which will improve services because a small percentage of your staff will find it difficult? Might need training? Might need work to motivate them? Because it's hard work? I bet you don't lol

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:27
Pfft I already know you can't take a wee joke - was the LoL not enough of a sign it was funny? I don't know it all Rob as you and BT are find of telling me at every available opportunity. You often point out how stupid supporters of the SNP are and that I clearly don't understand economics and BT thinks that no one who has not been in the armed forces and shot people knows nothing anout anything.

A secondary school? Well after 15 years of being involved in secondary schools my middle boy left Two years ago. You?

STop playing the victim, inferring people are gangin up on you ie me and BT....I purposefully kept out this thread until the obvious point ( well to me ) that teachers / promoted or not may well not have the time to engage fully in the process, and education should stop being used as a political football. As for expereince can you not read ? How about 3 kids spanning 16 years and active inside working with school staff for nearly 7 years........oh but I accpet that I really know nothing about anything being non SNP.

cptdodger
15-Oct-15, 11:30
There is training for promoted posts. There is CPD, there is child protection training and a variety of other training that teachers do, particularly when they are in a promoted post.

This is is not simply about child sexual abuse though is it? And whilst they may not ask a child in that situation may display a change in behaviour which is more likely to be identified and acted upon today than it ever was.

No it's not just sexual abuse, which I also pointed out. That child/children would have been displaying changes in behaviour before the "named persons" legislation was dreamt up.

I am not talking about teacher's training in general, because they had that before this legislation.

I want to know do these named persons regardless which profession they are in, all attend a specific training scheme in order to become a " named person" ?

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:35
You are absolutely right Rob. You can't. And no system is perfect. But is the answer to do nothing? We have in place now a system and we will need to train, monitor, motivate, measure performance and develop this service as it goes along. You know how that works Rob. I bet you do that every day with your staff and your company. Do you decide not to implement change because a small percentage of your staff will find it difficult? Might need training? Might need work to motivate them? I bet you don't lol

Yes as regards the company as if we dont make as an example big changes people suffer ie company will take a hit...leading to job cuts etc, but I feel for teachers and question if they have the time or will be given time to be trained properly, and in some cases give the actual committment to fully engage, also performance measurement...another set of performance measures ?? .....to be honest I feel that what will emerge is a paper trail : ie a local school policy, and a box ticking exercise, incororated into existing school inspection criteria. Creating a few QA jobs along the way.

squidge
15-Oct-15, 11:41
STop playing the victim, inferring people are gangin up on you ie me and BT....I purposefully kept out this thread until the obvious point ( well to me ) that teachers / promoted or not may well not have the time to engage fully in the process, and education should stop being used as a political football. As for expereince can you not read ? How about 3 kids spanning 16 years and active inside working with school staff for nearly 7 years........as for your line "You often point out how stupid supporters of the SNP are"....no I dont, but you seem to infer from posting that I do...... and that I clearly don't understand economics....by your own admission you dont ..... and BT thinks that no one who has not been in the armed forces and shot people knows nothing anout anything.....I will BTG to answer this impertinence himself


And away we go again! I'm not inferring people are ganging up on me and you were right. My comment about BT was a little harsh - I have changed it and I'm sorry if it was "impertinent".
But you know what Rob, you ARE fond of reminding me that you think I know nothing. That doesn't make me a victim of anything. It's a just a fact. It doesn't hurt my feelings honey, nor does it make me feel attacked- it is what it is.

Still no one hAs answered my question about how to decide who should have a named person and who should not have one.

The tickie boxes thing is not what has happened though. Remember we have been running with this system in Highland for five years now.

Im on my holidays and about to set off to another place which might not have wifi so probably won't be around for a few days again. Still I'm glad I popped in and at least ruffled your feathers lol

Taraaaa love ;)

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:54
And away we go again! I'm not inferring people are ganging up on me and you were right. My comment about BT was a little harsh - I have changed it and I'm sorry if it was "impertinent".
But you know what Rob, you ARE fond of reminding me that you think I know nothing. That doesn't make me a victim of anything. It's a just a fact. It doesn't hurt my feelings honey, nor does it make me feel attacked- it is what it is.

Still no one hAs answered my question about how to decide who should have a named person and who should not have one.

The tickie boxes thing is not what has happened though. Remember we have been running with this system in Highland for five years now.

Im on my holidays and about to set off to another place which might not have wifi so probably won't be around for a few days again. Still I'm glad I popped in and at least ruffled your feathers lol

Taraaaa love ;)

I dont, you infer this..and interpret that I am saying "you know nothing" why dont you examine your "percpetive and interpretative skills" be more confident in your abilties as when it comes down you can wipe the floor with me on political consitutional issues anyday of the week. SHow some more belief and confidence in yourself. I really believe given current issues in schools, and lest face it theyre a mess...... that what will emerge is ultimatley a box ticking exercise heaped on guidance / learning suport staff who have enough on their plates, so lets wait and see the eventual outcome. Enjoy your hoilday.

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 14:59
Well I shall just ignore the unwarranted personal attack.
You keep asking me how I would assess a child at risk.

To be honest it's not my area of knowledge I've no training in that area.

Can I refer you back to cases in Scotland where at risk children already in the system have been massively failed and ended up dead, unfortunately yes I can.
What this shows to me is that those supposedly already in a position to be looking after these poor children are failing in their duties of care.

So what is suggested is we expand an already failing system, stretch the resources even further give the staff even greater case loads and say, hey that should do the job now we've covered everyone just in case. Will it make those at risk safer.
No I very much doubt it will.
Will it create more problems than it solves.
More than likely.
Will those adept at lying through their back teeth to throw the people involved suddenly stop, of course not it will just make it even harder for those already pressed with heavy workloads to see the wood for the trees.

BetterTogether
23-Nov-15, 13:30
The latest update is the Scottish Government has cancelled the expert steering group set up to help implement Gifrec and due to run until Aug 2016

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/621161/SNP-ministers-secretly-scrap-expert-steering-guardians

rob murray
23-Nov-15, 15:29
The latest update is the Scottish Government has cancelled the expert steering group set up to help implement Gifrec and due to run until Aug 2016

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/621161/SNP-ministers-secretly-scrap-expert-steering-guardians

This is really really unbelievable : "If child protection concerns expressed by senior police officers are being swept under the rug, what hope do we have that the Government will listen to anyone? Public anger against this scheme is growing as pilot schemes reveal the problems of implementing the Named Person. So far the Government seem bent on pursuing it at all costs and against all objections. It’s time they listened to parents, police, social workers, teachers and all the others who have serious questions about the Named Person." with the majority theyve got why dont they do things above board, of course its all a pack of anti scottish / anti SNP treachorous lies spread by tories and and other quislings.

rob murray
23-Nov-15, 15:34
I had been involved in secondary schools all over the highlands for 7 years during the 2002-2009 period, delivering as part of a team The Hot House Youth Challenge programme ( basically an ICT ideas / innovation development project, one of the sponsors being Microsoft, our company were a Microft Gold partner, hence my partial involvement in the programme ) and experienced all kinds of teachers / heads etc....some ( mostly younger teachers ) were very enthusiastic in their duties, others were "dodgers" doing as little to get by as possible, others were clearly burnt out as its the nature of the profession ie start gung ho and enthusiastic when your younger and then through time / expereince / usually bad management / messed about by HC / stupid curriculum changes etc become jaded and burnt out and generally disinterested, doing your time until an early retiement. Teachers have their own problems and issues to deal with, and you cannot guarantee that 100% of teachers will effectively engage in the named persons process, they are human after all and no system is ever perfect.

According to the express article head teachers are being overburdened with related paperwork exactly as I predicted above. Of course the head teachers are work shy uncommitted quislings bent on making this fail for their own political reasons....or maybe its all true, all depends on how weher you bash yer egg open ?? This named person stuff is exactly like police scotland, we didnt want a single police force it was forced on us, and so will the named person procedure / policy. Democracy..... ach well theyve the power they can do what they like, sod all I can do except moan on here, for all thats worth.