Named person scheme falls apart under BBC interrogation

[squidge]

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]

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.u...organisations/


Seems more like bureaucratic megalomania !

[squidge]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/re...candal-1099361

[squidge]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...P-29092015.htm.

[squidge]

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]

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.