Named Person Scheme

[cptdodger]

Judges at the UK's highest court have ruled against the Scottish government's Named Person scheme.
Opponents of the scheme appealed to the Supreme Court in London after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year.
The system would appoint a named person - usually a teacher or health visitor - for every child in Scotland.
Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513

[theone]

An extract from the report:

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world."

[Oddquine]

Judges at the UK's highest court have ruled against the Scottish government's Named Person scheme.
Opponents of the scheme appealed to the Supreme Court in London after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year.
The system would appoint a named person - usually a teacher or health visitor - for every child in Scotland.
Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513


Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC? No, they haven't ruled against the NP scheme...they have required some adjustment to the data sharing elements otherwise it is fine.

Swinney commits to roll-out service as legal bid to scrap NP scheme fails.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney today pledged to work with key public services and children’s charities to ensure the successful roll-out of the ‘Named Person’ service for every child.
Following a legal challenge to the policy , the UK Supreme Court’s judgment:
• Ruled that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law
• Rejected the petitioners’ argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters
• Ruled that changes are required to the information-sharing provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act to make those provisions compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.


But as ECHR is on it's way out in the UK, they won't have to take any notice of that if they don't want to, I suppose.

For those few who actually like to know what they are talking about before letting biased belly rumble......the 49 pages of the judgment is here..........
.https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf

[theone]

But as ECHR is on it's way out in the UK, they won't have to take any notice of that if they don't want to, I suppose.



Nonsense.

The ECHR was there before the EU.

It is not part of the EU, and covers 47 states, not just the 28 (soon to be 27) EU members.

[rob murray]

Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC? No, they haven't ruled against the NP scheme...they have required some adjustment to the data sharing elements otherwise it is fine.

Swinney commits to roll-out service as legal bid to scrap NP scheme fails.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney today pledged to work with key public services and children’s charities to ensure the successful roll-out of the ‘Named Person’ service for every child.
Following a legal challenge to the policy , the UK Supreme Court’s judgment:
• Ruled that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law
• Rejected the petitioners’ argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters
• Ruled that changes are required to the information-sharing provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act to make those provisions compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.


But as ECHR is on it's way out in the UK, they won't have to take any notice of that if they don't want to, I suppose.

For those few who actually like to know what they are talking about before letting biased belly rumble......the 49 pages of the judgment is here..........
.https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf

Why the paranoia on anything emanating from the BBC ? You spolied another wise accurate factual post. The BBC report is accurate, and supports what you say, see below : Analysis by BBC Scotland home affairs correspondent Reevel AldersonThe ruling by Supreme Court judges - two of whom are Scottish - does not mean the controversial Named Person legislation cannot ever be implemented.
It simply means the Scottish government must make some changes to the law to ensure it complies fully with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Me : However given the stagnation of the Scottish economy surely more important things need resolved / attended to than this ?

[cptdodger]

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1151635]Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC? No, they haven't ruled against the NP scheme...they have required some adjustment to the data sharing elements otherwise it is fine. [QUOTE]

I don't care what the report says, I don't care whether it came from the BBC or not, it doesn't affect me, my children are grown up and safe from state interference. I didn't read the report so I would not have a clue whether it was a load of rubbish or not.

I posted this because it was a subject that had been discussed at length on this forum months ago. And I thought folk might be interested. But you have your little tantrum if it makes you feel better Oddquine.

[bekisman]

Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC? No, they haven't ruled against the NP scheme...they have required some adjustment to the data sharing elements otherwise it is fine.

Swinney commits to roll-out service as legal bid to scrap NP scheme fails.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney today pledged to work with key public services and children’s charities to ensure the successful roll-out of the ‘Named Person’ service for every child.
Following a legal challenge to the policy , the UK Supreme Court’s judgment:
• Ruled that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law
• Rejected the petitioners’ argument that the legislation relates to reserved matters
• Ruled that changes are required to the information-sharing provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act to make those provisions compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.


But as ECHR is on it's way out in the UK, they won't have to take any notice of that if they don't want to, I suppose.

For those few who actually like to know what they are talking about before letting biased belly rumble......the 49 pages of the judgment is here..........
.https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf
Why do some people have to use blasphemy? some orgers on here ill be offended, please bear that in mind!

[cptdodger]

Why do some people have to use blasphemy? some orgers on here ill be offended, please bear that in mind!

And that's basically what stopped me posting on here, not the blasphemy part of it, just the tone in general. It is just unfortunate some people cannot get their point across without being downright condescending.

[sids]

Why do some people have to use blasphemy? some orgers on here ill be offended, please bear that in mind!

I don't know why the Hell they do that!

[bekisman]

I don't know why the Hell they do that!
Personally I could not give a toss, confirmed atheist, but as you say the tone of writing of some people is totally not called for, they need to calm down and argue rationally!

[sids]

Personally I could not give a toss, confirmed atheist, but as you say the tone of writing of some people is totally not called for, they need to calm down and argue rationally!

Not much point getting offended on behalf of the holy wullies.

[squidge]

I would respectfully suggest that in light of the news today This is as important as it ever was and certainly as anything else.

[tonkatojo]

I would respectfully suggest that in light of the news today This is as important as it ever was and certainly as anything else.


I totally agree, there is something seriously wrong with the way children are raised these days, unfortunately, they do not get as much attention as I remember when I was brought up back in the 50s when my parents primarily my mother taught me right from wrong until I was at the age of 5 sent to primary school then the teachers took over my education, she then got a job but was home to care for me come school home time, but times have changed and perhaps it is as this quote bellow is as much to blame as any.

"Today, A woman's place should be at home, the kitchen, the nursery, the factory, the office, the sports field, the armed forces, the board room, or parliament because in fact, a woman's place should be wherever the hell she chooses with or without children."

[squidge]

I totally agree, there is something seriously wrong with the way children are raised these days, unfortunately, they do not get as much attention as I remember when I was brought up back in the 50s when my parents primarily my mother taught me right from wrong until I was at the age of 5 sent to primary school then the teachers took over my education, she then got a job but was home to care for me come school home time, but times have changed and perhaps it is as this quote bellow is as much to blame as any.

"Today, A woman's place should be at home, the kitchen, the nursery, the factory, the office, the sports field, the armed forces, the board room, or parliament because in fact, a woman's place should be wherever the hell she chooses with or without children."

Do you know what? I typed out a balanced, objective response to this and then realised I can't be bothered. Your post is out of date, ignorant and a little offensive, thank goodness the opinion that women should shut up, stay at home and pop out babies is getting less prevalent. It does, however, illustrate that the need for discussion of women's rights and feminism still have an important place in society.

Im off to do some housework, before tackling some political campaigning, oh, and preparing for the volunteering role I'm about to take on, and working on a presentation for my paid job. Oh and my husband is away this weekend, but guess what, even doing all that, I'm still "raising" my kids, playing with them feeding them, guiding them and supporting them. I don't iron socks and underpants or bake my own bread though - guess that means they have no idea about right and wrong and are destined to contribute to the breakdown of society as we know it. :roll:

And yes, cpt I'm being sarcastic and patronising and I'm doing it deliberately and I don't care :eek:

Have a great weekend!

[tonkatojo]

Do you know what? I typed out a balanced, objective response to this and then realised I can't be bothered. Your post is out of date, ignorant and a little offensive, thank goodness the opinion that women should shut up, stay at home and pop out babies is getting less prevalent. It does, however, illustrate that the need for discussion of women's rights and feminism still have an important place in society.

Im off to do some housework, before tackling some political campaigning, oh, and preparing for the volunteering role I'm about to take on, and working on a presentation for my paid job. Oh and my husband is away this weekend, but guess what, even doing all that, I'm still "raising" my kids, playing with them feeding them, guiding them and supporting them. I don't iron socks and underpants or bake my own bread though - guess that means they have no idea about right and wrong and are destined to contribute to the breakdown of society as we know it. :roll:

And yes, cpt I'm being sarcastic and patronising and I'm doing it deliberately and I don't care :eek:


Have a great weekend!





Good for you, I was pointing out how times have changed and judging by the recent news not for the better, and in my opinion, the same as everyone else is entitled to for the reason stated, a woman or man cannot be two places at once as you point out there is not enough time for everything but I suppose everyone has their priorities, I should say though the recent news is not new phenomena.

[bekisman]

Good for you, I was pointing out how times have changed and judging by the recent news not for the better, and in my opinion, the same as everyone else is entitled to for the reason stated, a woman or man cannot be two places at once as you point out there is not enough time for everything but I suppose everyone has their priorities, I should say though the recent news is not new phenomena.
Yes, i could see you were just pointing it out, quite a knee-jerk reaction from ** there it would seem; sad that

[squidge]

Absolutely not knee jerk - a considered deliberate response. It is utterly ridiculous that in 2016 what a woman does with her uterus is considered and muttered over more than what she does with her brain. It is equally as ridiculous to suggest that because a woman is a mother she should not be cutting hair, teaching, nursing, managing, being a chief executive, a soldier, a chef, a politician or even, a first or prime minister.

Which brings me back to what I said originally

"a woman's place is wherever she chooses it to be"

Its perhaps worth pointing out here that in the rosy nostalgia of Tonkatojo's 50s women didn't just Stay at home because of some idyllic nurturing commitment to motherhood but because when a woman got married or had children she was REQUIRED to give up her job, regardless of how good she was or how much she loved it. Married? Pregnant? You'll have had your career then.

Being a mum is a wonderful, amazing and fantastic thing but it is not all there is. If a woman wants to go back to work after maternity leave, as I did, or wants to stay at home with her baby and not return to work, as I did; if a woman wants to have children or doesn't, it should, indeed MUST be her choice and society has no business putting barriers in her way.

[tonkatojo]

Absolutely not knee jerk - a considered deliberate response. It is utterly ridiculous that in 2016 what a woman does with her uterus is considered and muttered over more than what she does with her brain. It is equally as ridiculous to suggest that because a woman is a mother she should not be cutting hair, teaching, nursing, managing, being a chief executive, a soldier, a chef, a politician or even, a first or prime minister.

Which brings me back to what I said originally

"a woman's place is wherever she chooses it to be"

Its perhaps worth pointing out here that in the rosy nostalgia of Tonkatojo's 50s women didn't just Stay at home because of some idyllic nurturing commitment to motherhood but because when a woman got married or had children she was REQUIRED to give up her job, regardless of how good she was or how much she loved it. Married? Pregnant? You'll have had your career then.

Being a mum is a wonderful, amazing and fantastic thing but it is not all there is. If a woman wants to go back to work after maternity leave, as I did, or wants to stay at home with her baby and not return to work, as I did; if a woman wants to have children or doesn't, it should, indeed MUST be her choice and society has no business putting barriers in her way.


Your quite right, as I said it's a matter of priorities, but no point crying over spilt milk when you get them wrong or stamping keyboards when other folk have a different method or opinion bringing up children, Quite frankly I do not give a toss about your indignation or being offended, ignorant I am definitely not opinionated definitely.

[squidge]

It's always interesting when someone says that they are opinionated but then complains when someone robustly challenges erm.... Their opinions. :roll:

[cptdodger]

And yes, cpt I'm being sarcastic and patronising and I'm doing it deliberately and I don't care :eek:

Whatever, I learnt back in March the hard way what is really important in life, and that was the day I lost both my mother and uncle. I am way past caring about people who think they are 100% right and the people that dare to disagree with them are stupid.

So Squidge, Oddquine, whoever, carry on being sarcastic and patronising, in the end it doesn't really matter because your opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I posted a link because it had been discussed on here months ago and mistakenly thought people might be interested. What was it Oddquine said ? "Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC?" Well, I could answer that if I had read the article, but I couldn't be bothered to be honest.

You lot carry on squabbling amongst yourselves, whatever makes you happy.

[tonkatojo]

Whatever, I learnt back in March the hard way what is really important in life, and that was the day I lost both my mother and uncle. I am way past caring about people who think they are 100% right and the people that dare to disagree with them are stupid.

So Squidge, Oddquine, whoever, carry on being sarcastic and patronising, in the end it doesn't really matter because your opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I posted a link because it had been discussed on here months ago and mistakenly thought people might be interested. What was it Oddquine said ? "Jesus wept.surely you don't believe anything emanating from the BBC?" Well, I could answer that if I had read the article, but I couldn't be bothered to be honest.

You lot carry on squabbling amongst yourselves, whatever makes you happy.


A bit of qualified sanity, very good.

[tonkatojo]

It's always interesting when someone says that they are opinionated but then complains when someone robustly challenges erm.... Their opinions. :roll:

Have you peered in the looking glass lately as your quotes reflect yourself perfectly, in my opinion.

[mi16]

I dont like the look of this Nominated Persons legislation at all.
Its a shame that the Legislation will just be reworded to suit the courts than passed by, would like to see it thrown out completely.