Named Person Scheme Sinister… Gives State Sweeping Powers Over Family…editor
We’ve discussed this topic before – the legislation due to come into force in the autumn whereby the primary relationship of every child in Scotland – from pre-born to 18 years – is to be with the Named Person (NP) appointed by the State, not their parents. Each time I’ve discussed this with some of the parents in my circle, I’ve been absolutely astonished at their responses, which range from “it won’t happen” to “it won’t affect me” to “I’ve got nothing to hide so it won’t be a problem”. They fail to join up the dots in recognition of the fact that the NP scheme is Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto (destruction of the family) writ large.
In fact, when we previously discussed this I remember a couple of our bloggers crossed swords, because one described parents who took a trusting attitude to the Government’s NP scheme as “simpletons” and another rebuked her suggesting it would be better, surely, to try to educate parents rather than call them names. Well, er.. yes. You’d think so. Except, over a year on, I know I’m not alone in finding it impossible to educate so many of them – they just don’t want to know. They refuse to recognise the gravity of this NP Scheme. Yet, already, before the legislation has come into force, at least one parent known to me, who’d never heard of the NP scheme, now realises that she has had a visit from hers – the health visitor attending to her during her pregnancy, called at her home (“just passing by”) and insisted on seeing her older (5 year old) child’s bedroom: one of the “standards” set by the government is that children will have a say in decorating their own room. Don’t laugh. That’s a fact. Check here And click here to learn about other parents’ experiences of the NP scheme ahead of its formal launch. Another parent has told me that she is going to re-decorate her children’s rooms and make sure everything is as “perfect” as it can be, for fear (I repeat “fear”) of receiving such a visit to her home. Looking on the bright side, this may be the first ever generation of perfect parents in the UK, if not worldwide… And children with their dream bedrooms! Crazy. Totally crazy stuff.
I attended one of the NO2NP roadshows on 22 June – East Kilbride – and it was heartening to see informed people from all walks of life there, including concerned parents, medical professionals, education professionals, pharmacists and other health professionals, all there to hear the excellent speakers bringing home to us the sinister nature of this new law, with hard facts and concrete examples of how the legislation will operate in the lives of every family in Scotland, from pre-birth to their child’s 18th birthday. Sinister, with bells on, and nowhere to hide.
One speaker asked us to listen to Nicola Sturgeon’s response to Liz Smith MSP (Conservative) at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament – see video below, and listen closely at 29.37 ff to hear Sturgeon asserting that “[the Scottish Government] will continue to act in a way that has the wellbeing of all children at the heart of “our“decision-making” – i.e. the State’s decision-making. Outrageous! A woman with no children of her own, telling parents how to raise their offspring! For, it is crucial that none of us makes the mistake of thinking that this legislation is aimed at protecting children at risk of abuse. That’s patent nonsense. Listen to Nicola Sturgeon speaking about the minority of cases where death has occurred, the exceptional cases, and then ask yourself why on earth she would want to label ALL parents as potential abusers and plant spies in every home – which is, effectively, what the Scottish Government NP is – a spy – in order to address a problem which affects a minority of children.
At least one top lawyer has savaged this piece of dictatorial legislation – click here to read his assessment.
So, what can we do?
1) Sign the No2NP petition – click here – and send the link to every parent you know/Facebook etc.
2) Write to your MSP – you can get the details here
3) Spread the link to this blog far and wide – and send the link to every parent you know/Facebook etc. Encourage everyone to sign up and speak out. The stronger the voice of opposition, the better, and the more chance there is that this intrusive legislation is ditched.
Note: due to the seriousness of this issue, we are keeping this thread open, and at the top of the page, for easy access. Feel free to post updates, any stories you hear etc. We all need to be as informed as possible, in order to fight this unprecedented and unconscionable intrusion into family life. Say NO! to the NP Scheme – and say it loudly.
The blog article is quite lengthy enough, so I resisted the temptation to add the thoughts which I shared with the rest of the audience during the Q & A session at last night’s Roadshow in East Kilbride. I’ll do so here, how, as briefly as possible, just to kick start the discussion…
In a sense, parents are getting what they deserve. They’ve gone along with the explicit sex education, widespread co-habitation where marriage used to be, and so on. They’ve allowed the lie to be perpetrated that most abuse takes place in the home, instead of pointing out that only a tiny minority of real parents have abused their children, most abusers in the news, have been step-parents. Stands to reason, given the decadence of our society, with single parents the norm, and mothers with several children with different fathers; boyfriends, a succession of them, often, not husbands, is the norm these days.
So, now, having accepted (and encouraged) the normality of this dreadful sickness in our society, and having established itself as having the right to teach the nation’s children about the most intimate details of procreation, and to encourage them to engage in marital intimacy without the marriage bit thrown in, the State is taking its mind (and body) control to the next level. From the school classroom, and “health” clinics, to the home and right into the child’s bedroom.
There’s not a shred of doubt in my mind that this NP scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting children from abuse – this scheme IS child abuse, causing divisions within families and throughout society, where, incredibly, there are people who think this intrusive legislation is a good thing, notwithstanding the fact that it strikes terror into the hearts of parents who are doing their best to raise good and healthy children, DESPITE the obstacles put in their way by this horrendous Government. This is targeting parents who dare to “think outside the box” who do NOT teach the PC morality to their offspring. Now, in fact, parents, for example, who try to encourage their daughters to “wait for marriage” will be deemed abusive, and the NP will see to the dishing out of the contraceptives (and later, treatment for the STDs) – incredible. And would YOU like to be a parent caught teaching your children that marriage should be (and can only be) between a man and a woman?
It’s never too late, though… while there’s life there’s hope… better late than never… You’ll get my drift. Time to call a halt to this evil State persecution of the family. In my humble opinion…
But in practical terms, faced with a NP in one’s home, what to do? I’m in the happy position of not having to face the situation, as I’m not a parent (lucky absent offspring!) However, my gut feeling is to refuse to co-operate. Would that be foolish or worse, dangerous? Would they take the children away if a parent refused to let the NP inspect a child’s bedroom, or whatever?
I don’t know – does anyone else? If so, speak!
I am appalled at this legislation. Most people I speak with say “if they are going to pass it, then there is nothing we can do about it, they will pass it anyway”. Others say to me, well I think it is a good thing because people who need help will get it and less children will get abused”.
Little do people know that this legislation is ‘evil’ and it will strip parents of their parental rights. This legislation is not about helping the vulnerable in society – it is about taking state control of our children and we must stop them. We managed to stop the Euthanasia legislation in Scotland. We must stop this from going through, we must at least try.
Having a named person for every child will not help those who really need help the Scottish Government should be spending the money and limited resources on the children who are at high risk. The system is already overstretched and tax payers money should be used more efficiently. The named person legislation is about the state spying and interfering on families. I would urge people to sign the petition against the named person and also following the events on the campaigns face book page below. Tell as many people as you can because the Scottish Government is keeping it low key.
You make some fantastic points. Very well said.
I will not be co-operating and no NP is getting over my door. If we are hassled by them I will bombard every elected official with correspondence.
I think you are right that some of us haven’t quite grasped the enormity of this evil. However, I will certainly try to share this link so that it gets as much coverage as possible
Yes, I do, don’t I? Make fantastic points … but it’s my humility that’s particularly appealing, don’t you agree???? 😀
Glad you have the “won’t co-operate” spirit but let’s wait to see if there are ideas on how best NOT to co-operate. No use risking prison and/or your kids being removed from the home (and nothing would surprise me – having seen documentaries about forced adoptions based on false judgements of abuse) so let’s hold fire, keep our powder dry, etc. Let’s see what the Bigger Picture is when autumn dawns or falls or whatever autumn does!
Non-compliance ideas welcome, by the way – what, in practical terms, do bloggers think rebels like Petrus might do in order to be rid of his NP?
You would have the opprtunity to visit me in prison and I wouldn’t have the option of cancelling!
We have been told by the courts that parents are under no obligation to engage with the Named Person. However, I wouldn’t trust this at all.
I will not be allowing any Named Person entry in to my home. No one has the right to enter your property unless a warrant is issued. I wonder how the Named Person will get round that. You can bet your bottom dollar that the authorities have already thought of ways to get round it.
Yes, a captive audience is my very favourite kind! So I’ll visit!
How did you find out about the court (NP .. no obligation to engage)? I hope it’s true, and that they’ve NOT got ways around it! Still doesn’t change the fact that the first point of contact if there is an issue or problem (e.g. at school or health care) is with the NP, not the parent. I wonder if anything could be done about that?
When the initial appeal was thrown out the presiding judge said there was no obligation for parents to engage. I will try to find a source. It’s not exactly enshrined in the law but it’s ammunition that can be used against the NP scheme.
My apologies, it was Children’s Minister, Aileen Campbell, who said parents are under no obligation to engage with the NP.
But that is only saying parents don’t need to engage with the NP – it’s not saying the children don’t need to engage with the NP. The NP still is the first point of contact and can still use all the NP powers, asking them about their parents etc. In a way if a parent says they won’t engage with the NP, are they not just handing over their authority to the NP?
Excellent point, MM.
Nicola Sturgeon said no parent can opt-out of this NP. I think they are deliberately vague with their choice if wording. I believe they mean parents don’t need to engage their children’s NP but that won’t mean there won’t be a NP fulfilling their role whether you engage with them or not – that’s my understanding.
I think we have to be careful about making more of this than there is. Statutory agencies are already overloaded with work. This is nothing more than a tick-box exercise to pretend that the government can do something about real child abuse.
I’ve read quite a bit about the named person and I’ve read many horror stories of people having their children abducted by social workers. While these anecdotes are horrific, we must be careful about the hysterical response the media is trying to provoke. The social workers themselves are almost always forbidden from defending their actions publicly so we don’t know the full story.
In many cases the named person will be a teacher. Does this mean that the teacher will continue to monitor the families during the Summer holidays? Also, if a teacher suspects a child is being abused, they already surely have a duty of care to report the matter. So the NP won’t change anything in real terms.
“This is nothing more than a tick-box exercise to pretend that the government can do something about real child abuse.”
Tell that to the parent known to me whose health visitor insisted on seeing her 5 year old son’s bedroom. Tell it to the parent whose Head Teacher visited her sick son in hospital, taking him a card (!) and telling the child that he, the Head, was “there” for him any time. If he wants to talk about anything, just see the Head. Mum sat by, puzzled, not, at that time having heard anything about the NP scheme. She is now horrified, in the realisation that she was in the presence of her child’s NP and he was blatantly taking over her role as the person to whom her child should naturally turn if there is anything he wishes to talk about. NOT the Head Teacher. It could be argued that anyone, like that Head Teacher, who puts themselves into the role of first point of contact if a child needs someone to talk to, is actually guilty of trying to alienate that’s child’s natural affection for his parent(s).
The first point of contact when there are any concerns about a child, is the NP. NOT the parent. Does that not concern you? It’s mind boggling that any parent would think nothing of being side-lined in this way, think nothing of being put under scrutiny and their “parenting” monitored against a list of downright stupid standards.
With all due respect, it’s precisely the casual attitude evidenced in your post that will enable this scheme to be rolled out, and it’s why, contrary to what you have written, the media are NOT provoking an hysterical response. There’s been hardly any media coverage – zilch on radio and TV. I have mentioned this NP scheme to countless parents and not one, not even ONE has heard anything about it.
By focusing on the teacher/workload, you entirely miss the point. Once there is a law in place, it can be used and abused. As I tried to explain in my first post on this thread, this legislation is intended as a way of choking out any “dissenters” from the PC Guide to Living in Modern Liberal Democracies. Try, e.g. to tell your child that “gay” marriage is not the best thing since sliced bread, and you’ll find yourself on a diversity / parenting re-education programme before you can say “Pink News”.
I don’t believe this legislation is really about every child being monitored, although the legislation means that is perfectly possible. However, the Government is not really interested in “every child” – that’s just the rhetoric to fool the useful idiots. It’s about making sure that children are being raised in the New Morality, and thus, it is those most at risk of being able to think for themselves – such as children in traditional Catholic or evangelical Protestant families, and/or home-schooling families – who will be on the “watch” list. That’s REALLY what it’s about. Mind control. Social control.
I can’t comment on the specific anecdotes you relate because I can’t hear the side of the health visitor or teacher in question. Perhaps they had good reasons- I’ll never know. However, ot is interesting that the scheme is still not fully live and these things are already taking place.
I don’t know why you’re getting yourselves into such a fankle over this one piece of rather pointless legislation when you consider that the state already has everything it needs to control the population. The state already has the means, and the legal justification if needed, to invade our homes and interfere in family life. It already takes our children and incarcerates them in institutions of social engineering where they will be brainwashed while their mothers are in wage slavery to banks who own the roof over their heads. We’ve been doing this for decades and calling it progress. Women now have the right to pursue careers. What they don’t have a right to do is have children and raise them themselves.
I take my hat off to any family in this day and age who has the commitment to step out of the conveyor belt that is the school system and home educate their children. They will bring upon themselves a lot of criticism from family and peers, and as it will automatically prevent both parents from working full-time, it will bring about financial hardship for most people. But it is a myth of modern society that says that children need flashy gadgets and exotic holidays. What children need is their parents- mums and dads.
Everything you fear about the named person scheme is already in place. The scheme will be more of a headache for statutory agencies than it will be for parents so I think that we should avoid putting unnecessary fears into parents’ heads when they already have enough genuine reasons to be afraid.
I had a conversation about NP with a high-level social worker a few months ago. She confided to me her fear that NP was essentially about having someone to blame when things go wrong, given that the system has failed children so often in the past.
This fits with what I suspected about the NP. Previous incidents of high profile child abuse have highlighted massive failures at an institutional level. The Baby P tragedy showed up the culture of box-ticking that there is in the public sector in the UK. A child was being systematically abused and services were in and out all the time and failed to notice. Or rather, they all noticed but decided that to act would generate too much beaurocray.
There exists in the UK statutory agencies a culture of avoiding litigation at all costs. The whole system seems to be set up defensively with that in mind. In future cases- and there will be future cases- the NP will allow to institutions to pin responsibility on one individual and hang them out to dry, letting the institution off the hook.
Your social worker friend’s fear is groundless. The NP scheme is not about having someone to blame – were that the case, it would be focused only on children and young people at genuine risk. Not every child. That’s the whole point. The resources should be focused on making sure there are no more failings in care for genuinely at risk young people. This stupid scheme is aimed at making it possible to take the social engineering already in progress, right through to its ultimate “animal farm” conclusion – total control.
As I said in my introduction, however, the number of parents who take the view that it’s really nothing to worry about, is astonishing.
Alex F., forgive me for being blunt but you are one of Lenin’s “useful idiots”.
If you are unaware that the state already has all the powers people fear from the NP and that the NP doesn’t actually add to any of the state’s existing powers then I’m not the only useful idiot.
But then, I don’t think you actually read my post. So perhaps it might be a good idea to try to calm down a bit, and then with a clear head re-read it.
Nobody can knock your door right now and demand to see your child’s bedroom. This argument, that the state already has all these powers, is a red herring – and manifestly not true.
Yes they can.
All they need is a pretext and they can do pretty !much anything they want.
Exactly – so why make it even easier for them? I’m amazed – I wonder if you have any children, Alex? I don’t, yet if I did, I would fight this tooth and nail.
But they can’t do as much now, as they will when this scheme comes into force. At the moment, parents are the first point of contact if there is a problem in school, for example. That changes in the autumn and parents may well be the last point of contact. Don’t YOU want to know, before anyone else, if there is an issue, a problem involving your child?
It is already easy for them. The NP doesn’t add anything to existing powers. All they have to do is come with a reason on paper to interfere in family life and that is very easy.
To speak plainly, you’re straining gnats over this.
You can’t be a parent. If someone wants to tell a stranger information about my child before I know it, then I want to see that bit of paper. There would have to be a good reason.
No parent would expose their child to this scheme, knowingly, so I am presuming you are not a parent. If that head teacher had told my child that they could go and talk to him about anything, any time, I would have asked him what he was playing at, that my child would speak to me or his father, if anything bothered him. We already know that the attitude of Heads to bullying is to shrug their shoulders, so what else is he talking about? If my child has problems with me or his father, go speak to the Head? What a nerve.
It’s not straining at gnats to protect your family against state interference. As I say, you cannot be a parent or you would not take such a laid back attitude to this scheme. Or else you’re a parent who goes along with everything, allows your child to do what they want and so the state will leave you in peace. Parents who try to raise their children in a Catholic spirit, are at risk. If (like some of my friends) they don’t allow TV in their child’s bedroom, and some won’t have TV in the house at all, then the NP will step in if the child asks for them to. As I say, only the casual, go along with everything parents have nothing to worry about.
Alex, below is a couple of links of interest:
There is too much state interference into family life, and I don’t think people should accept it. We have a duty to oppose this legislation, despite the existing powers they already have. We have a moral duty to do so.
It is already easy for them to interfere because people are not standing up to say No. People seem to go along and accept it with attitudes like “Well, they are going to do it anyway, no matter what we say” or “the child must have been getting abused”
These “so-called” professionals aren’t always so professional as we may think. The small number of children being abused does not justify parents being stripped of the parental authority over their own children. Instead, money and resources should be given to properly help those in need without the worry of their children being taken away from them.
I have no confidence in the system. I think it is corrupt from its very foundation.
“What [women] don’t have a right to do is have children and raise them themselves.”
And that, Alex, is the reason why thinking parents are alarmed at this scheme, why they are “getting themselves into such a fankle over this one piece of rather pointless legislation”… as you so elegantly put it…
In fact, this scheme is anything but pointless. It’s got a very sinister “point” indeed, as outlined in the blog article and even more clearly at the Roadshow which I attended on 22nd June, where informed parents really were in a “fankle” – i.e. intelligently concerned – at this latest attack on the family unit.
As for not wishing to comment on the examples I have given, of this scheme being already implemented ahead of time, since you don’t know the reasons etc. The fact is, there’s no question of the health visitor having good reason to demand to see a five years old child’s bedroom when she popped in ostensibly to do her job which is to care for the pregnant mother. The baby on the way was her concern not the older child. I’ve never known of any concerns raised about this family who live in a lovely home in a very nice area of Scotland and – apart from her surprise at the unexpected visit – “I was just passing and thought I’d pop in” (so much for overworked NHS staff!) – didn’t think anything of it. Indeed, again although surprised and puzzled at the insistence on seeing her son’s bedroom, that mother didn’t read anything sinister into the matter. It was only when she learned about the NP scheme that she put two and two together – and worried.
It’s evil legislation and it is, with respect, rather unwise to EVER trust the State with powers over your private and family life. Doesn’t matter if there are already evil laws in place to allow intrusion – every advancing piece should be resisted with vigour. Who was it said that those who agree to give up some freedoms in the interests of national security, end up with neither. Same applies to State powers over the family – you’re handing over your freedom to raise your children as you see fit.
We had this “I wS just popping by” nonsense a few years ago. We thought nothing of it. I think this thread is important because parents might now start to think something of it. If it happened now, they wouldn’t be allowed over the door.
What if the headteacher is a closet paedophile?
Who’ll carry the can if a child is abused by a NP? After all, it is a golden opportunity for someone with those inclinations and it would be easier for someone like that to convince a child that is was part of his/her job.
This is one of the reasons I don’t accept the anecdotes above unquestioningly. In this day and age it would be unwise for teachers or other professionals to become too over familiar with children. They are opening themselves up to accusations of inappropriate conduct. It seems odd that a health visitor would ask to see inside a child’s bedroom without any context so there must be more too that story. The health visitor would be leaving herself open to accusations of being a pervert. It’s asking for trouble.
In the current climate, most professionals practice very defensively. Much of their role today is focused on avoiding any complaints and being sued so it becomes about ticking boxes and covering their posteriors.
For me, the most important fact of all is that the NP will be the first point of contact, not the parent. I cannot understand why any parent would not be concerned about that.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s beyond belief that children could be involved in something at school, say, and it’s of concern, but the first person to be told about it is this weird Named Person. The parent may never know about a problem with their child. Who cares about going into the bedroom etc. That’s not the most important thing, but I have been just amazed at the lack of interest I’ve met in some parents telling them about this. They are really gullible, saying it won’t happen, and it will prevent abuse etc. They don’t even seem to care that they won’t be the first person contacted about a problem with their child !
I am now able to clarify the matter of the health visitor insisting on visiting the boy’s bedroom. On checking with my source, explaining your scepticism, I discovered the following – which doesn’t really change the core fact that the Health visitor had no right and there was no need for her to insist on paying a visit to the lad’s bedroom.
The following additional information, however, may help to contextualise her actions more clearly… And I have to confess that I was given this information in my original conversation with source – it just slipped my mind when I was putting the blog introduction together, focusing on trying to be as concise as possible, and only give necessary information. Only when I raised the matter with my source and she reminded me of the “recovering in bed” bit of the story, did I say “oops!” So, my sincere apologies. Better late than never, here is the “missing link”…
The boy had been in hospital and was back home recovering – he was upstairs in bed when the health visitor popped in (“just passing by”) to see her patient, the pregnant (with second child) mother-to-be.
The fact is, however, that she did insist on seeing the boy although her job description did not require her to do so and the young mother-to-be was very puzzled at her insistence, but wrote it off at the time – because she knew nothing about the NP scheme. She now views it with a healthy suspicion.
Make of it what you will, but I would caution you against a trusting attitude towards the authorities. They are seldom concerned with the best interests of any child (especially those in the womb) so if you’re going to discount anything, discount the “we’re only interested in the well being of every child, blah blah…” Answer: yeah right.
If she is a health visitor she was there to see the young boy and not primarily the mother and unborn child. That’s the midwife who takes care of them.
And I’m not naive enough to believe that they are only interested in the child etc… They are,always have been and always will be concerned primarily with covering their back sides. The more I read, the more I am convinced that this legislation is not about the wellbeing of children- I would agree on that. But I do think it is about finding someone to scape goat when things go wrong.
The health visitor was there to see the mother-to-be. Last time I checked, (1) children only had a health visitor until they turned five. The health visitor was NOT there to see the boy who is over five. (2) midwife attends the birth only and possibly some clinic appointments. Health visitors do the home visits, to the best of my knowledge. My relatives and friends speak routinely about visits from their “health visitor” – I’ve never once heard one of them say they had a home visit from a midwife. Not once.
But look, if you don’t want to believe any of the reports here, that’s your business. We’re not in the habit of making things up, be assured. No need, there’s no shortage of examples available. I can’t remember the half of them. I’m certainly not interested in discussing this, or anything else, with someone who is implying that we’re not telling the truth. Telling the truth is our raison d’etre.
Stick to your belief that the authorities are only looking for someone to scapegoat if that’s what you want to believe. It’s not true, but if that’s what you want to believe, go ahead. It’s a heck of a lot of bother to go to when they’ve already got social workers, police, teachers and doctors to blame, and rather puts the “professionals” we’re told will be the Named Person(s) in a very poor light, in terms of their personal intelligence. I mean,how many Head-teachers will agree to be a Named Person knowing they are only there so that if something goes wrong (with whom, when, in what circumstances, you don’t say) they can be blamed.
Not a very coherent position, but, hey, if that’s what you want to believe – no problem.
The health visitor would take to do with the health of anyone in the household. The midwife would take to do with anything to do with pregnancy, delivery and post-natal care until about 21 days after birth when it gets passed over to the health visitor.
I would more likely to believe all your anecdotes if there so many inconsistencies in them. But hey, stick with your position. It’s a bit hysterical, but if it’s how you want to react- no problem.
I am very surprised at your latest post. You are effectively accusing me of lying. I have merely reported what I have been told by a very reliable source.
I’ve been very open – I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am not a parent, and bloggers will be well aware that my chosen profession was education, not health.
You, on the other hand, have refused to answer the simple, innocent enquiry about your own parental status. You refuse to say whether or not you are a parent, and we have no idea of your career. For all we know you might be one of the new 500 male health visitors recruited by the NHS – and those who told us this (easily verifiable on the internet) at the NO2NP campaign were naturally curious about it in the context of the NP scheme. You may consider that to be an “hysterical” reaction. I consider it to be an intelligent and very healthy suspicion in the circumstances. Of course you may not be a male at all. We don’t know. Perhaps your lack of concern about the secrecy of the NP scheme (and social work industry in general) stems from your own tendency to secrecy. You may be one of those who claim to be a “private” person (always makes me smile, that one, because some of the most indiscreet people I know are perpetually describing themselves as “a very private person”) 😀
About the experience of the family with the “passing by” and very pushy health visitor, which you presumably think I’ve made up (if only I had the time), well…
The fact is, that particular story is a real horror story but I have truncated it to the core facts, omitting other details which may identify the family and bring trouble to their door. I do wonder, though, that if your health visitor insisted on seeing one of your children who was sick in bed, had been up all night and you said you’d prefer her not to go to the bedroom, would you be quite happy if that health visitor insisted? Actually, I suspect you would because I think you are one of those well-meaning people who think the authorities know best. They don’t.
Anyway, let’s leave it there. We are not going to agree, but if you think the experience which I have published here is untrue or unlikely, why not Google to see how commonplace such intrusion is into family life. I think you may be surprised.
To kick start your research, I thought I would conclude with a short interview with Tony Blair on the subject. Might help clarify the fact that the NP scheme is but the next logical stage in the attitude of the British State towards families, the attitude which considers that they own (and pay for) our children. The ruthless and uncaring attitude of Blair to forced adoption should horrify any right-thinking person – whether a parent or not.
That interview with Tony Blair is definitely horrifying. I remember reading that he had got the media to keep quiet about it when one of his sons was in bother, arrested for being drunk. He’s got some nerve to say what he says on that film about other families and daring to call them “dysfunctional”. As Kaye Adams said on her radio phone in, “in whose opinion?”
I also found this video, which make really scary viewing.
I can’t reply to everything you’ve written because I have a life away from my computer. But I will say that I did not accuse you of lying, or question your personal integrity in any way. I do, however, think that the anecdote you recount is incomplete. It’s obvious why the full story, can’t be relayed on a public forum, and we’ll never know the health visitor’s version of events, but the NP legislation is not even in place yet, and it still happened, whatever it was that happened, so would still happen without the NP.
I am not a health visitor, but I am very familiar with how things work in public sector agencies. I am aware of the encroaching interference of the state in the private lives of its citizens and of its diabolical agenda. The state already knows much more about our lives than we would like to think, and it already has institutions whose purpose is the indoctrination of our children into the values of the world- schools. So I don’t really need an education on that from your good self, thanks.
I just think that on this one particular piece of legislation some people have over-reacted and become a bit emotional.
In terms of my secrecy, it’s my prerogative to decide which information I want to share on a public forum. At the end of the day, my fertility status has no bearing on the NP legislation, I could just be making it all up.
I find your comments to the editor to be very strange, indeed. You have a life away from your computer, you say. You’re hardly unique in that, LOL!
I think your casual attitude to this NP scheme makes it very obvious that you are not a parent.
I’ve told loads of my friends and family who are parents about this scheme since this thread was opened and every one of them has said they were worried that their child was to have another adult, a stranger outside the family, with authority over them in things to do with their child. Listening to the Kaye Adams show, the only people who weren’t opposed to it said it was a good thing because it would help vulnerable children, be a one point of contact. But that’s not the purpose of it. It’s to monitor every child, not just those from supposedly dysfunctional families. This scheme is aimed at all families. How anyone can fail to see the danger in that, is amazing to me. It’s not “over-reaction” to see danger and try to modify bad laws, IMHO.
You keep saying that bad things already happen because of the social work system but you can’t seem to understand that that is exactly why nobody should accept this latest intrusion into family life. If you were a parent you would see that. The last comment I heard from a parent friend of mine was that his child already has a Named Person – him! He said he’ll be telling that to any interlopers if they dare to interfere in his family’s life, except he said it with a few ****** adjectives thrown in! LOL!
I’ve only had time to watch the first five or so minutes of your video but it is rivetting stuff. I will watch the whole thing asap. Many thanks for posting it.
As for your parent-friend with the **** adjectives – that’s the spirit! 😀
“The social workers themselves are almost always forbidden from defending their actions publicly so we don’t know the full story.”
Don’t the children’s courts work in secret and are answerable to no-one?
The legislate by exception process worked well with abortion (but if a woman is pregnant as a result of rape…etc) and is being used here.
Be sure that the NP process will be outsourced to commercial agencies and charities such as Children 1st, now called that so we won’t remember them as the RSSPCC who did such an incompetent destructive job in Orkney.
The NP scheme constitutes at the same time both a symptom and cause of the breakdown of the traditional (I prefer to say natural) family. It is a symptom, because it comes into being after a long series of cases in Scotland, the UK, and elsewhere which reveal children at the mercy of extremely bad parenting which has often been unmitigated by state intervention, i.e. the involvement of social workers. It is, or will be, a cause to the extent that it puts the state and its minions in the driving seat as far as the bringing up of children is concerned, and this can only mean the further destruction of the family.
None of us who frequent this blog or read the Newsletter can be surprised at this development. We live in a society in which people place their hope not in God, but in politics and politicians. Government casts its shadow over our lives as never before in our history, and the vast majority of us are quite happy about this, worshipping, as we do, at the shrine of the national health service which is the nearest thing the British have to a religion. Even on this blog I am prepared to bet that there are many who, like me, sense that compulsory euthanasia for the elderly and sick may very well become a reality in our life time, but only a few will appreciate the extent to which socialised medicine will facilitate this.
We have to face up to the fact that the development of the welfare state has been an unmitigated disaster for personal freedom. It has destroyed traditional Scottish virtues of canniness and self-reliance which have been traded in return for a system in which the governmen takes over more and more of our lives. Monopolies are almost always a bad thing. But we will rue the day we gave government what are effectively monopolies over health and education.
Concerning education, I suspect again that few on this blog would be prepared to countenance that there could be a link between comprehensive education and NP. But there is. Comprehensive education, apart from its other consequences such as blighting social mobility, has led to a general dumbing down of society and the imposition of a cultural uniformity which is as truly frightening to behold as it is music to the ears of our poltical masters who prefer zombies to citizens capable of engaging in critical thinking. It is not by chances that majority of politicians today favour the legalization of drugs. And it is supremely ironical that while the watchword of today’s society is ‘diversity’ that it should be precisely diversity, especially diversity of thought and outlook, which we abhor more than anything else as society clings paranoically to a narrow behavioural and intellectual canon whose dogmas are rigidly enforced by the Mainstream Mass Media (MMM) and increasingly by so-called social media.
The future looks bleak as we realize that Scots are by now well and truly addicted to government. We are also politically very immature. For well over half a century we were content to live under a one party state governed substantially by the Scottish Labour Party, mainly because they were so effective at bribing us with our own money. In the West of Scotland, as the saying goes, Labour did not so much count their votes as weigh them, and the sporting of a red rosette would have ensured the election of a chimpanzee, with due respect for chimpanzees everywhere. Now we have exchanged Labour for the SNP and similar bribery, completely oblivious to the fact that politicians of whatever persuasion need to be kept on a very short leash precisely because of their propensity to lie and to abhor freedom.
The number of cases of abuse in families has been very small. You don’t bring in draconian laws to monitor everybody for the crimes of a few. It’s the way of the government and media to talk up the cases so that the impression is giving that “bad parenting” is widespread (by bad parenting I mean abusive parenting.) However, reading the information about the Named Person scheme, they have extended bad parenting to mean parents who don’t let their child decorate their room as they wish or pick their own TV programmes etc. That “Getting it right for every child” document, the basis for the NP scheme, is disgraceful. What if parents decide that they won’t have a TV in the house or in the child’s bedroom? Is that going to be said to be bad parenting?
I’d like to comment on what you say about the welfare state – well, if they want us to pay for our health and education provision, they need to get employers to pay decent money, and reduce our taxes by an awful lot before we could afford that. The greed of the richer classes makes this unlikely. . I wouldn’t want a system like the USA where the ambulance men are asking you if you have insurance before they take you to hospital but if I had plenty of money, I would be happy to take out health insurance and pay for the best education for my children.
I’m from the US. Ambulance drivers do NOT ask for your insurance information. They may ask you if you have a preference for one hospital over another, if it is not a life or death emergency and you are close to both hospitals. And hospitals have to take all emergency patients, regardless of insurance status.
I have no problem accepting what you say about emergency admissions. It would be truly inhumane if ambulances refused to take someone in serious need to hospital.
We’re off topic here but since the subject has been raised (thanks Fidelis!) and since you’ve popped in from the USA, allow me to give my stock reply to anyone who expresses a preference for private health insurance over our public system – I say “watch just one episode of the American court room show, Judge Judy”…
I am always astounded at the way she hears cases of people, sometimes even relatives and family members, who sue each other for “emergency” room costs, following a fall or other relatively minor injury, and all to get something like 200 dollars from the person they consider to be responsible for their accident. We don’t have to think about that at all. If I fall down the stairs in your home, I go or am taken to the nearest place of medical help and given necessary treatment. I don’t need to sue you because the carpet at the top of the stairs wasn’t nailed down well enough! And let’s hope and pray our evil government doesn’t change that, because change that, I haven’t a shred of doubt in my mind, they would love to do!
I would have loved to hear your view about this Named Person legislation. How would THAT go down in the USA?
It is exactly for reasons like this that the Americans decided that the citizen has a right to bear arms. Maybe the time is coming when the British will ache for the same right … .
As an Englishman, I more and more think that’s it’s for their own good that the Scots go their own way. After a decade or so of Communism from the SNP, with the economy in ruins, taxation at levels that destroy the middle class and Commissars effectively running society, maybe reality will intrude on the mind of the Scot – who historically has been a pretty hard-headed individual.
Certainly the English, by nature a conservative lot, are moving away from socialism, just as the Scots seem to be running for the socialist cliff like so many lemmings. I don’t see how the two can stay together.
Dutch (or was in Belgian?) “doctors” are now agitating for children up to the age of twelve to be given the right to be “terminated” in the case of serious illness.
I remember a fascinating discussion with Father Michael Ryan in Moscow in which he taught me the marks of paganism:
1. Ostentation – a culture of bling ( = metal in faces, tattoos, shiny chrome stuff)
2. Violence of language and of behaviour
3. Human sacrifice – the ever-growing desire for blood.
This last was and is present in all pagan societies. Celts, the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztecs, the Communists, the German Nazis, African pagans today. And of course, now more than anyone – we liberated, humanistic, Enlightened Westerners. And the appetite for blood increases until it becomes the defining mark of the society.
How infinitely wise was Our Lord! He knew that His creation, fallen due to Original Sin, needed sacrifice. But in the new dispensation, the blood sacrifice of animals was substituted at last for the Unbloody Sacrifice of Himself on the Altar. Thus Man’s need for sacrifice was assuaged at the same time as Man was civilised, ennobled, raised up by Grace.
Very clearly, the West is now pagan, but we are “enlightened” and “technical” pagans. Blood is unsightly, so our craving for blood is hidden in the abortion mills and the Swiss death factories for the empty of soul atheists.
But the craving will come out into the open soon enough. During our lifetimes for sure.
My final thought is one that tempts me from time to time: this sudden triumph of paganism came when the ancient Mass was destroyed and Masonic principles triumphed in the Church. I do wonder whether Fr. Malachi Martin was right when he said that the only possible theological explanation for the meltdown in the Catholic Church in a ten-year period was that God has withdrawn Grace.
Fr. Martin was indeed prescient. Our time is a chastisement.
“At least one top lawyer has savaged this piece of dictatorial legislation – click … to read his assessment.”
It is important in “Catholic Truth” to keep the discussion honest. One could easily think, reading your words (lifted verbatim from the press release), that some “top lawyer” was actually giving his honest, academic assessment of the situation, his personal view based on experience and expertise. The truth of it is this “top lawyer” has been bought and paid for. He is saying what he says simply because he has been instructed in an appeal from a judgment of the Outer House of the Court of Session. He is a paid advocate doing what he is paid to do, making the best possible case for his clients. He may, privately, think it is a load of old nonsense he is mouthing; he may, privately, think his stupid clients are bringing a case they have no hope of winning – the proverbial “silk with a sow’s ear”. The considered judgment of the genuinely “top lawyer” who has disposed of the case so far is that the clients had no standing to bring the case in the first place and that their case had no merit whatsoever in law. They were savaged.
So, actual truth is “at least one highly-paid advocate has advocated his clients’ dodgy case to the best of his ability” – happens every day in court. Joe Beltrami lived by it.
It is worth checking out who is behind both the publicity given to the case and sponsoring the campaign you are trying to drum up support for. The prime mover is an outfit called “The Christian Institute” – up to their eyes in Belfast’s Biblical Bakery case. They claim to be “non-denominational” and do have a Director who does not foam at the mouth in the media. Behind him, however, is a rabid, hard-line evo-con group – loosely based around the Church of England’s Jesmond parish in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. They were associated with four fundamentalist schools, two of which were so scandalously bad the schools’ inspectorate shut them down. Their accounts show an income getting on for about GBP 3m a year, of which almost GBP 300k goes on fighting legal cases. They have a long record of fighting mainly homophonic cases and losing every one of them (top lawyers don’t mind taking hundreds of thousands putting up the best arguments they can muster and then watching the weary judges throw the nonsense out – silks still get paid for the sow’s ear).
So, do be careful about the propaganda you are passing on. Check the website They are in origin “nondenominational” Anglicans, who believe in the nondenominational doctrine of salvation by faith alone, asserting nondenominationally that there is no other mediator – “no salvation by any other person, creed, process or power” (good old saints and works). They believe in nondenominational “historical, biblical Christianity” (where “historical” is code for a fundamentalist reading of Genesis). As well as nondenominational sola scriptura, we have a nondenominational dose of a church restricted to “true believers” – the “one, holy, universal and apostolic church” in their creed.
These nondenominational chaps are so nondenominational that they cannot bring themselves to use the creeds’ “C…….” word. “Universal”! And chaps they are, since this lot also believe in a nondenominational doctrine of “male headship” – all the charity’s trustees (and its plausible, smiling, media-friendly Director) are men – evo-con sexism neatly disguised in the Charity Commission documents by using initials only rather than Christian names.
So, really, unless you are thinking of re-branding as “Universal Truth”, you really would do best not to swallow the inane propaganda of people who are prepared to twist the creeds to avoid the hated “C…….” word. About as nondenominational as Dr Iain Paisley or Pastor Jack Glass.
The Church of England is stuck with Jesmond – it is in the nature of the being the Church by law established that it is a “broad” church, stuck with accepting every last misogynist, homophobic, creationist nutter who cares to attend. Deeply embarrassing to have to put up with this rancid antediluvian backwater – but there are other mainstream parishes (notably St George’s) to cater for the saner inhabitants of Jesmond.
That it no reason members of the One Unholy and Unmentionable church to buy into evo-con bigotry. Top lawyers get GBP 300,000 a year to spout it for them. Doesn’t mean the top advocate actually believes a single word of it. Nor should C……. Truth.
For those puzzled by John Dowden’s comments about the “top lawyer” – click here. I took the description from the linked headline. And it sounded to me very much like that well known lawyer was fully on board with his clients. Read it carefully and quote anything that suggests he’s representing them but not agreeing with them. Cos that would indicate he’s chosen the wrong career – acting would have been a better choice, and he’d have won Oscar after Oscar in no time!
As for the Christian Institute – we all know that they are behind the No2NP scheme and thank goodness for that. Nobody else is bothering to speak out or fund such a necessary campaign. They are doing very good work in bringing certain cases to court, including those associated with this evil NP law – don’t knock ’em.
After all, as you must agree, being one yourself, Dowden, Anglicans ain’t ALL bad 😀
“They were associated with four fundamentalist schools, two of which were so scandalously bad the schools’ inspectorate shut them down.”
The parents didn’t agree they were bad, but what do they know, eh?
“Their accounts show an income getting on for about GBP 3m a year, of which almost GBP 300k goes on fighting legal cases. They have a long record of fighting mainly homophonic (sic) cases and losing every one of them (top lawyers don’t mind taking hundreds of thousands putting up the best arguments they can muster and then watching the weary judges throw the nonsense out – silks still get paid for the sow’s ear).”
I’m happy to contribute to their funds for such a worthy cause.
“So, actual truth is…..”
If only we’d know before that you are the one who can distinguish actual truth, although as proof you only offer your opinion. As our transatlantic cousins say, “get over yourself”.
Your last paragraph is most illuminating; one can almost hear your teeth grind. The Catholic Church is One, Holy and Apostolic; nothing you can say will alter that fact, and you are only knocking your head against a brick wall in trying.
“The leaflet also says state officials will check which people are around your child, where your child lives and what is going on in your child’s life. They will even “think about what is good about your child’s environment”, and “think about what could be better”.”
Somehow I don’t think “they” will approve of most of the people who post here. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany live again.
What I don’t get is the number of people who simply have not heard of this issue. I was explaining it to an English lawyer friend of mine the other day and he had never even got a whiff of it. The Scottish government are keeping it very quiet, no doubt about it. It is evil. The only politician I heard speaking about it was Mr. Coburn of UKIP where he likened it to the Stasi in every home. If anybody has any influence with the likes of Sarah Smith, why not use it. We need open discussion on this.
Only a few minutes ago, I sent the following email to Radio Scotland’s Morning Call show…
There has been very little coverage of the Named Person Scheme, coming into force in Scotland in the autumn. We’ve launched a blog thread on it, here
Although we are a Catholic group, this is not a particularly “Catholic” issue – it affects every family, every parent and every child up to the age of 18 – including the pre-born – in Scotland. The Named Person is to be the first point of contact if there are any issues/problems with a child. A disgraceful side-lining of parents.
Hopefully, you will offer a platform to parents who are seriously fearful of this how this legislation will operate in practise.
I am not a parent, but I would be happy to find someone willing to be interviewed on your show, if you decide to break the media silence and publicise this shocking institutionalised – and completely unprecedented – intrusion into family life. EDITOR, CATHOLIC TRUTH… END.
So, hopefully, I’ll soon be asking for volunteers to go onto Radio Scotland – stand by!
Editor, I’ve noticed how the comperes of Morning Call trip over themselves to be PC. Louise White has rising panic in her voice whenever anyone mentions a “hot” topic. Kay Adams is a bit more bolder, probably more experienced. Nevertheless, even she quickly tries to move the topic on if it seems contentious, anti gay, pro life etc. In her favour, I do remember her expressed shock at “all those wee limbs” when discussing the results of abortion.
Perhaps try Kay. Unless she is gagged a la BBC censorship, she might give it a go. She has children too.
Kaye Adams is part of the Morning Call team – there’s no longer any “Call Kaye” show. Sometimes it’s Louise, who always sounds very friendly, and sometimes it’s Kaye, also friendly.
Anyway, we’ll see if Radio Scotland takes up the challenge. Watch this space!
Too right, CL. I had heard nothing about it until it came up on this blog.
Editor, please, let me know what is the result!
Will do, Lionel. Fear not! Bet you’re glad you live in France and not sunny (if only!) Scotland…
Sure, Editor! although I love Scotland with its beautiful sceneries…
I spent many holidays in this country, particularly at Hulapool and Lochinver and even up to Cap-Worth and the isles and navigated all around this area; gorgeous!
I listen to Morning Call quite regularly, if the subject matter interests me, that is. Yes, both Louise White and Kay Adams are very pleasant people. However, I, also, have heard panic in Louise’s voice if a caller expresses “PC” issues and have hear Kaye pass comments such as “I’ll get a row for this” (paraphrase) so that leads one to wonder just HOW uncensored this (and other) programmes are.
I think the broadcasters do have to be careful – they don’t want to be in bad odour with the PC lobbies of various hues (and cries!)
If a child has a crucifix in its bedroom it will be accused of being a sadist.
One of the parents at the Roadshow in East Kilbride on 22nd June, said that she had a statue of Our Lady, a crucifix and pictures of the Immaculate and Sacred Hearts in her home, expressing the feat that she could be accused of exposing her children to extremism, indoctrination etc. It struck me when she was speaking that couples in mixed marriages may clash over such things and there is a level of love there – imagine a stranger having power to influence such things, using their own ignorance, bias, prejudice. There has been NO (let alone insufficient) public debate about this NP scheme. It has got to be scrapped so that the fear factor can be removed from family life in Scotland.
Even more worrying than the Named Person is the Un-named Person(s) behind them – the ones really pulling the strings.
I agree. The likes of Nicola Sturgeon is pulling the strings and she’s not to be trusted IMHO.
I wonder who monitors the headmasters’ children, or will they be allowed to do homers.
I’d really like to know the answer to that one, Frankier. As I would to the question you raised above – what if an NP is a paedophile. To become one would surely be the height of a pervert’s ambition. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I never ever thought a genuine priest would practice paedophilia but there is no doubt that many entered the priesthood with that intention knowing it would be easier to get away with it.
Now, since that wee trick has been exposed, what better opportunity, and it is even a better one, than to become a Named Person with more control than even the parents have and for 18 years.
You could even finish up marrying one of your “customers” no matter what sex they are.
I’ve just emailed a letter for publication to The Scotsman Newspaper on this topic, in response to the Secular Society (who are never far away from a letters page in the Scottish press) saying parents who wish to teach their children about religion should exert their influence at home, not in the school system. I replied “not for much longer” once the NP scheme comes into force. Let’s see if they publish it.
Bet they don’t! We’ve stopped getting this rag long ago. An objective hearing? No way!
My letter to the Scotsman has not been published, but there are two published one – one in favour (a very dishonest letter – nobody would think that the first point of contact for a child is the Named Person, reading his version of events) and one very much against. Click here to read…
Your letter was in fact published yesterday. Not in the Scotsman but in the Edinburgh Evening News!
It’s the second letter on this page: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/letters-snp-s-celtic-lion-plan-looks-costly-1-3820791
Well, whatdyeknow?! I’d never have thought of checking the Edinburgh Evening News. That’s interesting, and explains why they omitted the beginning of my letter which refers to another letter in the Scotsman to which I was replying, My original letter reads as follows:
Robert Canning of the Secular Society argues that “Parents who wish their children to believe or not believe [in God] can exert their own influence at home.” (Scotsman Letters, 27/6/15)
Not for much longer. When the sinister Named Person legislation comes into force in the autumn, parental rights to raise their children as they see fit in any area of life, religion included, will end.
The Named Person Scheme dictates that a Scottish Government State official, not the parent, will be the first point of contact for every child pre-birth to 18 years when there is an issue/problem, perceived or real. Yet, this sea-change in the relationship between child, parent and the State has received almost no publicity in the media, as a result of which many, if not most, parents know nothing about it. Government mission accomplished.
The doctrinaire members of the Secular Society are unlikely to seek an end to the NP Scheme, but parents who wish to protect their children from being raised by strangers should sign the NO2NP petition, available online or by contacting Catholic Truth, 10 Sandyford Place, Glasgow, G3 7NB. END.
Thank you for uncovering that, CD – between that and the link to Morning Call on the Radio Scotland website, you’re turning into a veritable research treasure – we’ll have to give you a pay rise soon !
Since your letter clearly refers to the Scotsman it’s a mystery to me why they decided to truncate it and publish it in the EEN. I did wonder why you seemed to take a poke at the secular society for no apparent reason.
I can’t take too much credit for ‘discovering’ it. My Dad, who is in his 80s, isn’t fond of reading things on a screen so we actually get a copy of the paper. (Having seen their website I think he has a point!)
That’s why I published it here – my reference to the Secular Society taken out of context will mystify readers. They either do that deliberately to discredit the correspondent, or are just not very good at their job (editing).
How many Named Persons would be required for a family of, say, ten?
Would one person do the lot or would there be a bus load arrive every so often to re-enact something like the Balcombe siege?
How many children/young adults would each one be allocated?
How much is all this going to cost?
Finally, will they still ask us to provide tins to stock up their foodbanks despite wasting millions on this crazy idea?
“How many Named Person would be required for a family of, say, ten?”
I’d say ten would be required. Each child to have a NP.
There’s some good news – parents who went to the Hampden event took organisers by surprise by demanding answers to why there was no consultation with parents about this before it became law etc.
I really can’t believe any government could be so bold as to openly override parental authority and allow strangers into the home to make sure the child is being well cared for?
Here, we have Social Services who will happily remove your child from your home if they get a complaint from a nosy neighbor. I’ve known it to happen. Interestingly, it’s usually the children from functional homes who are whisked away but the child really being abused is seldom, if ever removed.
What would the ‘inspectors’ say about the Crucifix, statues and other Catholic devotional items. Would parents be accused of indoctrinating their children? Taking away their freedom by imposing their beliefs and values on them? It’s really madness.
The NP scheme is on the front page of today’s Herald Scotland
Parents are fighting back, is the core of the report. Hopefully, it will be shelved now.
I’ve just had a text from a reader saying that the Radio Scotland phone in at 9pm is on the topic of Named Person. If you Google Radio Scotland and then go to Morning Call you should be able to listen to it live.
Editor, it was 9am not 9pm.
Thank you for that correction and sorry about that, but as you will note, I was posting, in much haste, at one minute to 9.a.m. having just been alerted by text, (thank you, Clothilde!) that the subject was about to be debated on Kaye Adams, Morning Call show. I rang in thinking I would probably be too late but received a call back within minutes to participate in the discussion.
I was pleased to have the opportunity and said what I could (can’t remember what! I hope to hear it later online, but right now it’s not on their website) and then they brought me back in to respond to one of the “pro” people, named Bill.
I think I managed to get a few key points across, notably that the first point of contact in the scheme is not the parent, but the named person, and so I’m pleased about that.
One of our readers from Aberdeen (Margaret) also rang in and was very good indeed – at least the bit I heard. Unfortunately, someone rang me to tell me about the show (!) just as she was beginning to speak, to again will have to wait to listen online to hear it all properly.
The most important thing about it was that the vast majority of those ringing in were opposed to the scheme and those few in favour were of the mentality that it was a good thing because it would help the vulnerable, ignoring the point that had been made more than once, that they can’t keep up with the “vulnerable” as it is, looking for a needle in a haystack, so why make the haystack bigger?
Kaye Adams said that they would undoubtedly return to this subject in a few weeks as it is causing concern among parents and even teachers and other professionals who will be involved, mentioning one who has already left the profession because she doesn’t want to be involved. So, we must keep a watch for that next discussion and do our best to make the points that were missed this time – such as, I meant to say that this scheme operates on the assumption that all parents are potential abusers. I didn’t make that important point so hopefully one of us will make it next time.
I have just finished listening to the Radio Scotland phone in, and I can’t believe those who are in support of the legislation, they definitely are useful idiots who don’t seem to have a clue about the true intentions of the Scottish government’s sinister agenda. I was very impressed with the teachers who came on against the named person scheme who know fine well this is state interference. The claim that the scheme has been in place in the highlands for between 5-7 years and has been working effectively is simply not true – we will only get to hear about the ‘so-called’ success cases -which would have happened anyway under the present system that is in place. The telegraph below dated September 2011 shows an innocent family Dundee who have been targeted and treated abominably is just one example of interference into family life from this extreme legislation. Forced Adoption is horrific. This legislation is about state control and nothing else. This legislation is very worrying just the like the Assisted Dying Bill.
Thank you for that shocking Telegraph report – do you know what happened to that family in the end? WERE their children taken from them?
I can’t get the Morning Call programme online – there isn’t a listen again facility. They seem to have stopped that in March. Does anybody know why?
I’m not sure what has happened to the listen-again facility but I did listen to the programme and even had my say. Kay Adams was very fair and firm and asked some searching questions to the pro camp but these were never answered but cleverly side-stepped.
The scheme has supposed to have been running in and around Inverness and yet the legislation has not been passed so what is going on?
I fear that parents authority is going to be taken away and undermined without a second glance even though many parents object and the organisations involved do not have any idea how it is going to operate.
It seems that the bill will be passed by this government in the same way as the SS laws even though the majority of the public were against them.
The government are looking to pass the bill during the summer when most parents are going to be busy at home with their children or away on holiday. How convenient of them perhaps to sneak in the legislation without anyone being around to stop it!
We must get on our knees and pray as never before for this law to be thrown out.
Then get our pens out and write to all our SNP’s etc and local counsellors. Editor has given us all the above contact info so lets get to it.
I, too, heard the programme live this morning but as MM says there is no “listen again” facility to let us hear it now. At one time it was available to hear for at least a week. There’s no explanation given but it’s not there – pity. There’s no explanation given either as to why these shows are not being made available after broadcast. Maybe allowing us to be aired “uncut” is too much for the broadcasters – i.e. bad enough to allow it “live” but for them to have to listen to real people expressing rarely heard views for an entire week AFTER the live broadcast, might be a step too far! Maybe there is another, more technical reason, but until I hear it, I remain suspicious 😯
As for the legislation not being passed – it was passed on 19th February, 2014, but is not supposed to be implemented until the autumn. We had a blog discussion on it, headlined with the date of the passing of the law (19th Feb) – click here
And here’s a Herald report on the topic dated 20th February, 2014
Editor (and others)
The Kaye Adams programme can be found here:
Thank you for that link. I’ve now managed to hear the whole thing right through and I can say, without fear of contraception, that our reader from Aberdeen, Margaret, was, by far, the best contributor on the show – she really did say it all, and she said it perfectly.
I’ll find a way to take my revenge on her for putting me in the shade, but put me in the shade she did.
Well done, reader Margaret from Aberdeen. You were a star! Just don’t let it happen again! 😀
Yes, thanks, I did know at the time and also wrote to our MSP’s! but the mind is addled lately as so much going on.
The Herald posts are a good source of information and will use in any further correspondence.
Please pray for a dear friend, Rita, who has just passed away. RIP
That’s a good idea to use the Herald posts in future letters.
Be assured of my prayers for your deceased friend, Rita. May she rest in peace.
Here’s some fun…
I had an email today from one of our readers, who occasionally blogs here, as well, a reader from foreign parts (England? You ask… Nope, even more foreign than England!) and this is the text of h is email:
Would you let me know what they mean by “Named Person scheme”? Would the government of Scotland chose the name of the kids instead of the Parents? How strange would it be! This would mean an intrusion in the family’s life, would it not be?
Priceless! My reply: “Don’t give them ideas! Wouldn’t put it past them!”
I mean, do we really want a land full of Donalds and Fionas, and Alistairs and…. you’ll get my drift 😀
Two letters in today’s Scotsman on the subject of the NP scheme – both against it.
Click here to read…
The social services in this country are already like their namesake the, SS.
They have a habit of stealthy and secretly stealing children from parents on the most arbitrary grounds, and giving them up for adoption to homosexual couples. We all heard about that story, right?
Not to mention the Rotherham satanic abuse case in the 90s. Does anyone remember that horror story?
Well basically, this school girl from a poor working class family drew a picture in school. It was a bit weird. Apparently it was based on a dream. We all know how weird dreams are, right? Well anyway, the teacher reported it to social services. The social services interpreted the whole thing to mean that the girl and her siblings were being sexually ritualistically abused and that the parents were actually witches[!]. There was no evidence of this however and the case was laughed out of court. Not after that family had been totally destroyed however. Who are the real abusers?
And let us not forget what else happened in Rotheram, under noses of police and social services…
The SSPX has already been declared a hate group in America under the self-assumed authority of the SPLC. How long will it be until traditional Catholic children are taken into care to protect them from the ‘extremism’ of their parents.
Here’s today letters in The Scotsman on the subject of the Named Guardian.
Note the first one (there are two) perpetuates the myth that no family will have to interact with the NP – ignoring the key fact that the NP is the first point of contact for the authorities in any matter relating to any child in Scotland. And something that has not been given much attention, either, is the fact that this NP has a say during pregnancy, so we can only wait to see what sorts of problems that throws up. Imagine having someone “accompany” you through pregnancy who is – for technical reasons, i.e. the first point of contact – more important to the authorities that you, the mother. Unbelievable that anyone would either dismiss this scheme as unimportant or, worse, defend it. Both categories of useful idiots deserve all that’s coming to them.
And here’s today’s letters in The Scotsman on the subject of the Named Guardian – I hope somebody’s reading these jewels!
I’ve been following the letters page as well and to be honest, I wouldn’t have given the public as much credit for being able to see what is going on here. I’m both surprised and pleased that the overwhelming majority of letters have been against this mad scheme, rightly described as “sinister” atop this page.
I’m reading them! Thanks for taking the time to post them. 😀
It’s odd that Catholic parents are so concerned about the NP, when in most instances it will be their head teacher or guidance teacher. Why do they send them to the same school where they will be educated under that same person they object to being named person? If they are so concerned about guarding their children against brainwashing and social engineering, would it not be advisable to home educate? Or is that going too far?
The new powers are the problem. That’s why people are worried about Assisted Suicide/Dying. It’s the same doctor, but with new powers. You don’t seem to get that.
BTW, it’s home-educators who have most to fear from the Named Person scheme. Anybody who is teaching their children to think for themselves, will be on the “watch” list.
On Thursday, 16th July, there is a meeting in Glasgow, part of a series of events entitled “A Fairer Scotland“. An MSP will be present, supposedly to allow us all a voice as to the type of Scotland we want (yeah right)
Anyway, it’s free, but you need to register, so click here to read more and register if you choose to attend. I think it’s important for as many of us to go along as possible, to make sure that the NP issue is raised.
A couple of us went along to the “Fairer Scotland” meeting today, and pleasingly met other readers who had gone along of their own volition.
Alex Neil MSP addressed the (not very large) audience, standing in front of a couple of banners headlined “Creating A Fairer Scotland”… Alex Neil, I mean, not the audience!
A number of people spoke out, myself included, expressing concerns about the Named Person scheme. I said I couldn’t see anything “fair” about sending spies into people’s homes, under the NP scheme. The impression was created that we are worrying unnecessarily, that it was really just about having a co-ordinator to make sure all the agencies were in touch with one another in cases of need, citing the case of Baby P. All but one person who spoke on the subject were against it. One woman was all for it, but revealed in her defence of it that she had a child with whom she couldn’t cope (now grown up) and would have liked to have a “Named Person” for help. Answer to that, of course, is, well YOU ask for one. It shouldn’t be imposed on parents who are coping perfectly well, thank you very much. Anyway, she took offence at my comment about the trick of blaming families for the majority of abuse when cohabitation is widespread and therefore it stands to reason that the majority of “abusers” are boyfriends, not natural fathers. Then she took offence when another reader objected to the fact that the Named Person could over-rule her in the matter of watching certain TV programmes, e.g. a cartoon with two characters playing “daddies” – no mum being in the household. That caused a stramash, with the lady just mention and (as we later found out) a young homosexual man at the other end of the hall calling out that he was offended at that, as well. Both of them, unwittingly, of course, proving the validity of our concerns about the NP scheme for those parents who refuse to go down the PC road. Indeed, the man chairing or (as he insisted, facilitating) the discussion said in response to that concern, words to the effect that the parents don’t always have the right to refuse their children such programmes etc. That’s not verbatim but the mask definitely slipped at this point and it became clear that any parents who wish to teach their child that having “two daddies” is not the norm, is unnatural, would be on the NP hit list in a heartbeat.
You won’t be surprised, folks, to learn that, out of all the people who spoke at the meeting, the majority expressing concerns about the NP scheme, the one to whom the MSP headed to chat to at the end was (drum roll) the lady who thought it a great idea! They really do want to hear our concerns, these politicians, don’t they? Go figure!
Other issues raised were food banks and the carer service but it was heartening to see how many raised the issue of the Named Person Scheme, and were not afraid to speak out against it. I’m not sure how much good is effected by going to these meetings but we all consoled our (by then very unpopular) selves in the knowledge that, at the very least, many of the main objections to this sinister scheme were stated openly at that public meeting. And outside, the sun beat down. Never mind creating a “fairer Scotland”, God gave us a much “sunnier Scotland” today, while we were cooped up in a room trying to dialogue with the deaf. Why couldn’t it have been raining as usual? Murphy’s Law! 😀
Those kind of politics meetings are only a token gesture to democracy IMHO. The MPs and MSPs run a mile from critics. It was good that Alex Neil has to listen to unpalatable stuff, but I doubt if it’ll make any difference. They decide what they want to do and they do it, no matter what. The same-sex marriage kid-on consultation proved that.
the trick of blaming families for the majority of abuse when cohabitation is widespread and therefore it stands to reason that the majority of “abusers” are boyfriends, not natural fathers
Thats an excellent point Editor, very well done!
I will keep an eye out for that trick in debates / discussions in future.
When it suits them, the enemies of the family like to pretend that much of society is a model of Christian society, instead of the cess-pit they themselves have created! Quite right to show that the problems come from their own social model.
That statement brought fury upon my pretty little head. The man who was supposed to be “chairing” (he said “facilitating” – same thing) came back at me a short while later, quoting what I’d said and saying it wasn’t true because throughout history, there had been abuse in families, when the couples married and that was the norm. They say these things, throw them into the pile, not a shred of evidence, but make sure there’s no time to answer. All I could say in response was “not true”.
The evidence for my claim is clear; we all know that the majority of couples living in domestic “family” situations are not rushing up the aisle before they start playing house. In the two cases they keep putting before us – Baby P and Victoria Climbie – it was not natural parents who abused and murdered them. Baby P was the victim of the mother’s boyfriend, and Victoria was the victim of her aunt and HER boyfriend.
What effect will the very recent UN resolution on “Protection of the family” have on this menacing Scottish legislation?
I am hoping Sturgeon will find her scheme holed below the water line, as a result of the resolution.
Amongst other things, the resolution says “the family has the primary responsibility for the nurturing and protection of children” – this seems at odds with the SNP legislation which seeks to set-up a Government stooge as the primary decision maker regarding children.
Needless to say, the morally bankrupt “western world” largely voted against the resolution – so its one in the eye for our vacuous Governments and their feminist and LGBTQIA-123-XYZ-!#? pawns (all of whom despise anything to do with families, normality and decency).
That is fantastic news about the UN resolution – what a pleasant, and most unexpected surprise!
Sturgeon will have a heart attack – as will the guy who chaired yesterday’s meeting. Actually, he didn’t chair or facilitate it at all – he commented after just about every person’s contribution, instead of leaving it to the Minister to speak if he wished to respond. And he had the nerve to tick me off for speaking too much. One lovely retired teacher at the back pointed out that HE’D spoken more than me ! And as one of our group pointed out later, there were plenty of moments of silence, periods when anyone who wanted to could speak out but it was the same few who did, in the end. The truth of the matter is, he was livid at what I was saying, to the point where he tried to draw the meeting to a close half an hour early. As he began to thank people, I looked at my watch and pointed out that the meeting had been advertised as being from 12.30pm – 2pm. It was now only 1.35pm. Silence !
Anyway, at one point, after the young home-schooler mum had said she wouldn’t want her children watching the cartoon with two dads, he, to our astonishment (the young mother was open-mouthed at this) criticised her and said that, more or less, parents had to be monitored. What if her children grew up thinking that homosexuality was immoral, was really what he was saying. He actually said words to the effect that if the parents didn’t toe the party line, then the State had to step in and see to it that the children were brought up “on message”. The family’s not always the best place… trail off… Of course, I’m paraphrasing but that is definitely the sense of what he said.
Yes, he who later told me he had only agreed to facilitate the discussion, wasn’t an organiser, wasn’t an SNP member (“I’m a Labour man”) made such a good job of defending the Scottish Government’s NP Scheme and the Minister (Alex Neil MSP) in particular, that, I said – in an eleventh hour attempt at light-hearted banter – that Alex Neil MSP ought to pay him well for his efforts today. That went down like a lead balloon. I think I’ll give up comedy for a while. A long while 😀
Another good letter on the Named Person debacle in today’s Scotsman…
Click here to read
There doesn’t appear to be a link to the newspaper article.
Sorry I see it now
Margaret Mary put a link to a Facebook discussion with Alex Neil MSP on different issues, the link was put on another thread, but I’m copying it here. I read some of it and there were a few questions on the NP scheme, and I also found this LGBT question, and Alex Neil’s answer:
Joseph Lewis Reid Hi Alex. How do you propose the Scottish Government can improve the safety of LGBT residents in Scotland? Especially with trans* people still facing lots of violence according to the most recent Equality Scotland report. Thanks!
The Scottish Government: We are implementing revisions to the Same Sex Marriage Act in relation to the needs of Transgender people. The focus is on educating people on the needs of the Transgender community and tightening our laws when it comes to dealing with any kinds of violence, abuse or inappropriate behaviour. Thanks Alex.
There’s also a few questions about the Named Person Scheme if you click on where it says 25 more questions.
Thank you – I should have posted the link here in the first place. Sorry about that.
You just can’t get away from the LGBT stuff, it’s everywhere. Now the “trans” people are to the fore.
It’s good that Alex Neil MSP was getting questions about Named Person, there are a lot on the Facebook page now. It’s a bit worrying that they seem determined to go through with it, no matter about the opposition and there is a lot of it. I thought it was interesting that on the video at the start of the column, Alex Neil lists some of the questions that were asked but doesn’t say the NP scheme, even though there were so many. I think it must annoy them that although they rail roaded it through in secrecy, now that people know about it there’s lots of complaints. I hope everyone keeps up the pressure.
Nicky (and MM)
Thank you for posting that link – it is encouraging to see so many questions/comments about the NP scheme but I can’t see any responses from Alex Neil, unless, yet again, I skimmed too quickly.
Whatever, it’s great that this scheme is being challenged.
People are so obsessed about child abuse. I mean, really obsessed. Does anyone else think that this in itself is a bit creepy? I mean, I am against child abuse as much as the next person, but these child abuse fanatics seem to think you are not normal unless you have child abuse on the mind 24/7. Actually, they’re the ones who aren’t normal. And if you ever bring it up with them, I don’t know, like you say “don’t you think your obsession with paedophiles is a bit unhealthy”, they get all bent out of shape and accuse you condoning child abuse, just because you are not as obsessed with it as they are. It’s ridiculous. I reckon they don’t care about children at all, I think it is just something they enjoy being angry about. Chris Morris satirised this mentality perfectly in his 2001 Channel 4 spoof news show ‘Brass Eye’ in the episode ‘Paedogeddon’.
Social workers have been so obsessed with protecting children, that very often they have acted delusionally, and have actually harmed children. I suspect it has more to do with power rather than a concern for children. Look what happens when the state has too much power over family life: these personal accounts which have been compiled by the BBC are heartbreaking:
Only now have I had a chance to properly read the link you posted above about the Rochdale children – absolutely horrendous. And this is what we are going to witness in Scotland once they implement this evil NP scheme.
It makes no sense at all. I’ve now alerted more parents to the scheme and each time they were totally unaware of it and became really worried on discovering the details.
One acquaintance – a mother who has been having problems with her teenage daughter not least because said daughter is prone to fib her pretty little head off, as and when it suits her, as relatives have discovered, to their dismay. In order to protect identities, I can’t say more than that, but it is clear that this NP scheme is going to be an absolute minefield and will cause trouble for good parents and families the length and breadth of Scotland.
I’ve said and I’ve said again that if the SNP win the last 2 Scottish seats presently held by Mr. Mundell, Con., and Mr. Carmichael, Lib. Deb., then we are doomed. It’s just stupid that Mr. Carmichael has soiled his copybook as he is a very able politician. Anyway, the SNP are dictators (and I do not support any particular party) and if the N.P. policy is implemented, we will have the Stasi in every home and, of course, the really dysfunctional families will be overlooked due to over worked social services. Crazy!
More pearls of wisdom…. I couldn’t agree more. The families in real need, will be overlooked while the Paintbrush Police seek out the innocent parents who are not keen on allowing their offspring to turn their bedrooms into discothèques, complete with flashing lights, dance floor and DJ booth. Crackers.
Here’s the latest from the No2NP campaign…
NO2NP Roadshow: Glasgow
Monday 14 September, 7:30pm – 9:00pm
Lesser Hall, Couper Institute
86 Clarkston Road, G44 3DA
Received the following email update in my inbox today…
Hi [Supporter of the No2NP campaign…)
Supreme Court beckons for Named Person challenge
as judges reject calls to put Scottish families first
This morning we received notification that our appeal against the introduction of the Named Person scheme has been rejected.
In a written judgment the Inner House of the Court of Session ruled that the legislation does not conflict with human rights or data protection laws.
There are some positives to take away. The court seems to agree that parents should be able to reject unwanted approaches from the Named Person and that data sharing powers should not be extended beyond current law. Unfortunately that’s not what the legislation says. We believe the court is taking too optimistic a view of the legislation and how it will operate in practice.
Responding to the judgment a NO2NP spokesman confirmed that the ruling would be appealed saying: “We do not believe that the judges engaged properly with the arguments we put forward so we will take them to the Supreme Court. Ultimately we may even have to go to Europe.”
Contrasting the scheme portrayed in the judgment with the legislation itself, he said: “If the nature of the Named Person scheme was as the court described then we would not have brought this action in the first place. The judgment states that a Named Person is unable to interfere in family life but merely able to make ‘an offer of help, which may simply be rejected’. But the legislation gives a Named Person broad powers to interfere without parental consent.
“The court also describes the aim of the scheme as ‘the promotion of child welfare’ but it’s ‘wellbeing’ that is at the heart of the Named Person scheme, not welfare. The judges say this distinction ‘is not easy to grasp’ but there is a stark difference.
“Welfare approaches use ‘significant harm’ as the threshold for state intervention in family life, whereas Government funded guidance on the Named Person scheme says wellbeing is just another word for ‘happiness’.
“The threat to the human right of families to privacy in their own homes has not gone away. Neither has the inevitability of breaches in data protection laws as the Named Person passes confidential family information from pillar to post. We will continue to take all available avenues for justice for as long as these threats remain.”
We will not be deterred – the campaign to protect families all over Scotland from undue state interference continues.
Thank you for your ongoing support,
The NO2NP Team
NO2NP campaigns against the Scottish Government’s Named Person scheme – legislation that allows the Government and state authorities to undermine parents’ responsibility for their own children and spy on family life.
Get in touch via the NO2NP Website. END.
I came across this advert today – the demonising of parents is deliberate,IMHO.
Since not everyone relishes the thought of having to see Nicola Sturgeon’s lovely smile every time they log on here, we’ll close this thread now and launch a new thread, with link to this one, when there is a final ruling from the Supreme Court/Europe. Could be a while!
Thanks to all who commented here. Keep informing friends and acquaintances, because the Government has no intention of spreading the news of this unprecedented intrusion into family life. Tell everyone you meet to check out the No2NP website where they will gather all the information they need.
Comments are closed.