1K.Orger
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?
1K.Orger
You cant get your head around it? Or dont want to?Originally Posted by cptdodger
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.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
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.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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.
1K.Orger
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.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
Christ.
OK your definition of waste and mine would appear to differ. Id rather spend it ehre than on pensioners who are loaded.
It might. This happens all the time anyway. Hardly a reason, more a whine from you.
In my glass half full world it might encourage them to say something to someone as they cant/dont want to with their parents.
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.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 14-Oct-15 at 16:18.
1K.Orger
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.
1K.Orger
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.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
the council tax freeze, corporate tax exemptions or expenses for MP's full stop plus all non means tested freebies......agree with you.
1K.Orger
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.
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 14-Oct-15 at 17:45.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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.
1K.Orger
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.
1K.Orger
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.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Oct-15 at 09:40.
1K.Orger
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???
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
1K.Orger
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.
Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
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’.
Last edited by BetterTogether; 15-Oct-15 at 10:40.
1K.Orger
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks