SNP Government Out of Control?editor
Under the Named Person scheme, every child is to be appointed a state guardian at birth to monitor their wellbeing up until the age of 18. All families will receive 11 compulsory visits to inspect their parenting skills before a child starts classes. Read entire article here and note the news of sinister tests – already being carried out in Scottish schools. I heard of one parent’s experience this morning.
If you are concerned about the Named Person Scheme, and/or about the storing of personal information about your family and home on a database, you can contact your MSP by checking the list here
I’m hearing of people in education who think there’s a place for the scheme, and some parents who have resolved to “keep my head down”; that is because they are accepting the principle that it is acceptable for the State to interfere in family life, and in the case of the parent, she is terrified of bringing herself to the attention of the authorities as a “rebel”. Yet, once the principle (that the State may interfere in family life) is admitted, there is just nowhere to go. Either parents have a right to raise their own children as they see fit, or the State has the right to raise the nation’s children as the State, through its various agencies, sees fit.
One commentator opines that the Scottish Government is now out of control. I agree. Do you?
But one thing puzzles me above all else – why are parents not taking to the streets over this issue?
I have no idea why parents don’t take to the streets but it can only be out of fear or ignorance or both. I have been horrified for a long time at the way the State interferes in family life. Not many people realise how many forced adoptions take place in the UK. This video throw a horrifying light on this subject:
Anybody who keeps their heads down or justifies this Named Person scheme needs to remember that what goes around comes around and they may suffer from this evil scheme themselves, somewhere down the line.
I’ve not had time to watch the video you posted, but it reminded me of the Panorama Special which we discussed on this blog – you can see the post here Although the video is no longer available to view, there is a synopsis of the report to read.
I do recall that the secrecy of the family courts was highlighted and, in fact, I believe the film closed with a former family court judge saying that the secrecy must end. It’s a nonsense to claim secrecy in the best interests of the child. The two children in that BBC film will not know their parents until they are 18 years of age. How can that be in their best interests?
And all because useful idiots in the courts (and I’m afraid in education) have fallen for the line that the experts know best. They don’t. Psychology is, at best, an inexact science, so for anyone to over-rule parents on the say-so of someone with no more qualification than a piece of paper that says they know a bit about psychology, is disgraceful. And, as the BBC film we discussed before revealed, the so-called medical experts got it wrong with the child who had multiple fractures – turned out to be a known condition, not abuse, but the “experts” didn’t recognise it until too late.
When I taught in a sixth form college in England, I had one parent tell me that she had a visit from social workers because her son’s behavour had raised concerns – why? Because he was a quiet lad. Seldom spoke. That was his nature. Mum had a Phd so was three times as qualified, academically, as the numpties who were sitting in her living room quizzing her about the sociability of her son. Idiots. She’ll be glad she’s not living up here now, with this NP Scheme already being implemented, as we can see from the Daily Mail article (and Christian Institute reports) although it is not supposed to “roll out” until August. I wonder if that, in itself, is breaking the law? Won’t matter. The lawmakers ain’t going to sue their own puppets.
That will come across as unkind to a friend of mine who reads this blog and tells me that he has already had to invoke the Named Person powers. Not my intention. He’ll always be my friend – he knows too much 😀
I do understand that a teacher or health visitor, immersed in the secular atmosphere that has bred this legislation, may find themselves carried along by it and forget that, as a first principle, the State must never interfere in family life. The fact that we already have a Social Services which does that up to a point, doesn’t change the fact that it is undesirable. In my world, (when I become Prime Minister!) the Social Services Department will be the first to be closed down. We’ve all come to accept State interference in the family to some extent but we need to “catch ourselves on” (as they say in northern Ireland!) before it’s too late.
Catholic Teachers and health workers who are appointed Named Persons, need to guard against the danger of thinking that their conscience is clear when the reality is that their conscience is not dictating to them at all. What is happening is that they are, quite simply, looking at the issue through secular eyes; in other words, they have – albeit unwittingly – simply forgotten the first key principle that the State should never interfere in family life. Just because a psychologist or a doctor disagrees with a parent over some aspect of their child’s care, doesn’t mean they have the right to over-rule the parent, and use the State agencies to help them. Parents are the first educators of their children, and they have responsibility for them – not the State, which is merely permitted to help the parents, when the parents express a desire for that help.
That video is harrowing. Just hearing that mother’s screams as her baby is stolen from her, is unbearable. This is a crime against humanity, and all because the couple sought help with their first child when they were not coping. No wonder people don’t want to tell the authorities anything.
I met a couple yesterday whose four children were taking away from them by the state because they (the parents) reported a paedophile to Scottish police in Aberdeenshire. The Scottish police (to protect the paedophile who is in a powerful position) followed the family to Ireland and harassed and pursued them (even going as far as trying to kill them) and are still harassing and pursuing them and keeping their children from them completely illegally. Both the Scottish and Irish governments are complicit in this. Legislation such as this Named Person Scheme just gives the Scottish government more power to carry out illegal and unjustifiable actions such as happened to this family. (I know this sounds far-fetched..I wouldn’t have believed it myself if I hadn’t heard it from the completely ordinary family that it happened to.)
Editor: you are apparently referring to the case of Brian Docherty which we discussed recently on this blog. If you click here you can read the entire discussion and, hopefully, come to understand why we have serious reservations about his claims. Please do not make this thread another forum to discuss his claims. He refuses to answer obvious questions, despite promising to come onto this blog and do so, and so I, personally, do not believe his allegations. No future comments on this subject will be published, so please do not waste your time writing/submitting any more. Please and thank you!
While I absolutely agree that the parents must be the ones who have main responsibility for their children, we surely cannot ignore the sad fact that some parents are totally inadequate and harm their children. We have all read of recent appalling cases of child cruelty and neglect where after the death of the child, social services were bitterly criticized for leaving at risk children with their parents. If you close down social services who can help these children?
Editor is unlikely to end up being PM, so I wouldn’t worry about it!
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence! I just might stand for Parliament just to prove you wrong!
Well, make it the Scottish Parliament! LOL!
True, but unfortunately, the collectivist/socialist mentality, for whom the state is everything and the individual/family just an economic cog, operates according to this principle: the exception is the rule. That is, since there are a few families where children are indeed being abused, that means every single family is suspect of doing the same, and must therefore be “monitored.”
The psychological tests being used in Scottish schools really are “Orwellian” and it is disgraceful that parents are being so openly undermined in this way.
I was also open mouthed when I read that inspectors are being sent out to inspect parents’ “parenting skills” – What????????????????????????????
How is that going to work? If a parent is out working all day, or if both parents are out working all day, how will they inspect them?
Will they also inspect the nursery nurses for their skills? There are plenty of stories of them yelling at kids and also teachers of course. They know how to play the game for inspections and it’s not unusual for the disruptive kids to be taken out of lessons during an inspection. Why are parents being singled out?
There was a report recently about a Named Person (senior teacher) who was convicted of abusing 200 pupils, yet she was in a position where she could over-rule parents’ choices for their children. It’s getting beyond the pale, so yes, I definitely think the SNP government is well out of control.
I wonder who inspects the inspectors for their parenting skills.
Someone from Barlinnie maybe?
And then there’s the one who inspects the one who inspects the inspectors.
We could finish up by wiping out unemployment in Scotland.
“Wiping out unemployment” – LOL!
Parents should tell their children to only say good things about home, no matter what. These questionnaires are a disgrace, prying into the home lives of children. Makes you wonder how many of the people operating this scheme are paedophiles themselves.
It is true what you say, to a degree, but there was a case in England a couple of years back where no less than 100 people were involved with a family, which included police, social workers, psychologists, specialists, experts and smart guys and gals of all shapes and sizes and the child still died.
The excuse was that no one person was to blame. If that was the case then they should all have been jailed.
You ask who can help these children if you close down social services. My question is: who is going to help them if you keep social services open, for it seems to me that they are the ones they need protected from.
This Wumman and her Cohorts have unfortunately not been out of CONTROL . Their very much following their own Aithestic Nazi agenda,and although Patrick Harvie is supposed to be leader of a so called Green Party his first remit is to close Catholic Schools -although it has been proved that as we know that they outperform Public Schools -do the Catholic Schools burn more energy than other schools is that the reason ED . Did you as a teacher keep the heating on to long in the classroom tut tut shame on you . No all kidding aside we know it’s not a laughing matter . No this Wumman to me is more of a threat than Mrs Thatcher (at least she had some Christian Principles )and am sure if she had been in power The Homosexual Marriage Bill would have been kicked out before it reached her desk . This S N P mob are Power Mad and it doesn’t half show . As a government they are abysmal sure they couldn’t even keep The Bridge open as they pursue their agenda To Get To The Kids First.
The state does not have the right to over-rule parents’ with decisions about their children. I think the named person scheme is sinister and from my experience of speaking to parents; they seem to be accepting this intrusion into family life, thinking, I guess, that they won’t be affected by it. What a sad shame. I think we all have a duty to protect the rights of parents. Generally, parents are afraid, so I think grandparents, aunts, uncles, family and friends, who do not have young children, should help to stand up for parents who cannot act, for fear of being victimised. Children who are at risk of being abused won’t be any better off because of the implementation of the named person scheme, as has already been said from a contributor (a school teacher) on the Kaye Adams Programme which I will paraphrase: “it is already difficult to find a needle in a hay stack, if you make the hay stack bigger, it will be even more difficult to find the needle”. Therefore, if you stretch the ‘already stretched’ resources within our schools, nhs, social services, and police etc., more mistakes will happen and instead of helping those high risk children, they will in actual fact be lost in the system, and even more children will slip through the net, than there does at present. It is unjust for the government to impose this policy/law on all parents.
All Catholics have a duty to oppose this unjust law on parents. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the chief duties of those who hold public office are to be just to all in exercising their authority and to promote the general welfare”. Well, those holding public office in our Scottish government are not being just in exercising their authority and promoting the general welfare on the family. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that “We [Catholic Citizens] are obliged to take an active part in the works of good citizenship because right reason requires citizens to work together for the public welfare of the country.”
In summary, there is already a system in place to identify and report children who are at risk of abuse, there is no need to for the named person scheme to be implemented as it is unjust for parent’s rights to be taken from them and that is the sole purpose of this scheme. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Parents must provide for the spiritual and bodily welfare of their children; superiors, according to their varying degrees of responsibility, must care for those entrusted to them.” Any superior whose children have been entrusted to them should not over-rule the authority of the parent. Once, they have alerted the problem of the child to the parent, it is then the parents’ duty to deal with the problem, at which point, the duty of the Childs’ welfare lies with the parent and not those who were temporarily entrusted.
The named person scheme goes beyond the duty to care for the welfare of our children and it removes the duties of the parents to raise their children through the eyes of God.
The bigger problems in society with children from dysfunction families, for example, who are addicted to drugs and therefore, fail to care for the welfare of their children do require help, families from broken homes with step mothers and step fathers who abuse their children need attention, but this is a bigger society problem and is a consequence of not following God’s laws, so why should good parents tarred with the same brush – there should not be a blanket law that covers all parents lie this Godless scheme.
We need to pray for the conversion of Scotland and we need to act to prevent evil laws from being enacted instead of having the attitude that some people have that “it won’t affect me.”
As far as I am concerned this is yet a continuation of the unfolding of the Message of Fatima, and will in the end affect everyone – chapter two of the Communist Manifesto – Attack on the family.
Pray the Holy Rosary Every Day, and please act to stand up for the family.
Another very good reason for kicking this bunch out the door in the May elections. I consider this “Scheme” to be an abuse of Parents human rights. The SNP are turning Scotland into a Nazis/Communist state. They probably have an ID cards scheme on the back boiler with a Location Chip implanted in it. Would not surprise me at all if they did have.
Totally agree, parents are now usurped, Stalin’s NKVD and the East German Stasi would be chuffed with such a scheme….why not the State supply and pay for school uniforms if they think they are more responsible than the parents who brought them in to this world?….Now think about this….”Oh Catholic school eh?……Source of bigotry and brainwashing…parents PRO-LIFE…that will never do….unfit parents…need to be sent to Parenting Classes”…wotcha mean they “won’t go”?…..”just warn them that their children will be taken in to care”!…..that’ll sort that bunch of so-called parents out!!…That is what will happen, make no mistake.The Named Person will be the new Enlightened Folks who will embrace every new diabolical fad out there and will despise in particular Christian Parents inculcating their values on the the Children of the State !
I’d cut an ID card up… unless we were at war.
The Scottish Nazis Party have already shown what hand they’ll play in morals NONE .This is their way of getting to the children ,before anyone else can get to them, simple . They think that they will be able to walk in the back door with no objections ,and slip out the front children in their arms. No one with any brains thinks this is for the benefit of kids or their parents,we can all see their so called Manifesto in this Scheme . It will also get the strong backing of our now redundant (unless it’s a domestic ,or speeding offence )Police Force .
Has anyone ever wondered why Cameron and his cronies are NOT using the Named Person caper as a cause celebre to ridicule Sturgeon and the SNP?
What a weapon to show how ridiculous the Scottish Parliament is etc…Not as if WE the Westminster Parliament would entertain such frippery and waste of tax payer’s money, teaching resources etc.
Very simple..Scotland is being used as a Testing Ground, a la Poll Tax and the rest of the UK is going to follow suit,except not actually declared yet!
Finally “how is the much overworked teacher cum social worker aka “named person” going to cope…how safe is stored data (Data Protection Act and all that jazz) and the golden nugget….”what will they be PAID !”….coz can’t see them doing this for NOTHING and how will they be Personally Indemnified for financial compensation if they get something wrong or are simply negligent ?
I cannot imagine ANYONE doing this for NO RENUMERATION anywhere in the world…..All part of Neural Linguistic Programming my friends..the New Science……..Worth a Google on the good old NLP caper.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Cameron would probably say that is was needed to prevent terrorism, which is being used for just about everything these days
I seem to remember that they did try to introduce this scheme in England but dropped it because there was such an outcry from parents. Scots are much more malleable, think the authorities must know what they are doing.
“Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity and removes all the restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of the right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog wheel in the Communist system. In man’s relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font….
…Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage tie is scoffed at. Communism is particularly characterised by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and family then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right….
Sound Familiar? These quotes are taken from Pius XI’s 1937 Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris
Society cannot say that it was not prophetically warned of what was coming, not just to Scotland but to all formerly Christian nations. I advise everyone to read the full Encyclical, here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris.html
Thanks for the link
And if Sturgeon is so much an EU groupie, then what has the EU and their Human Rights bandwagon got to say about this nonsense?….They MUST know about it and could it be they would love to see this trialled in one of “their” subordinate and sychophantic states……
N O T I C E . . .
I am still experiencing problems with email, so apologise to those of you awaiting replies from me. Will catch up asap.
One of the reasons, the main one maybe, that people don’t protest more, is that many simply don’t know anything about the Named Person proposal.
My friend and I have given out leaflets and spoken to people in shops and cafés. Most of these people have never heard of the Named Person. I find that really alarming because it would suggest laws such as this one, get in by way of cashing in on the lack of knowledge of the people. There’s something distasteful about that.
Another reason, is a failure on the part of those who have heard, to investigate the exact nature of the proposals and therefore not to see the proposal as abrogating parental rights.
Then there is apathy! A lot if people are too busy keeping things ticking over in the basics of family life to give a thought to any law, good or bad.
Then again, one woman said she could see there were children who needed more looking after: she did not have a good opinion of some parents she knew. She was prepared to suffer intrusion herself if it meant these neglected children would be better looked after. So she was prepared to accept thee Named Person scheme.
Just some reasons for there being very little apparent opposition. There are lots more, of course.
That’s been my experience as well. When I tell people they don’t know anything about it but when I explain it, they say “oh well, there are so many children being abused” etc. There seems to be something i people that prevents them realising that governments are not to be trusted, that they need to be on their guard against giving politicians an inch, because they will take a mile. It is unbelievable, but I can see that parents will meekly accept it when a teacher, nurse or whoever informs them that they have just over-ruled the parents on something. The parents are so meek already that they will just think that’s normal.
It’s exactly the same thing as is happening with terrorism, the government using that as an excuse to take away our freedoms and the majority say they are prepared to put up with that to be safer. I can’t remember who it was, one of the American presidents I think, who said that those who are willing to give up their liberty for more security, end up with neither.
Agree totally,but WHY are the Labour, Tory party etc in Scotland NOT using this fiasco to batter the SNP??….and Cameron and his bunch have a golden opportunity to handbag Sturgeon over this monumental disgrace and yet DO NOTHING? What an opportunity squandered (even for the wrong reasons) to sink this piece of legislative trash…..Still CANNOT fathom if these NP’s are going to be PAID…..other is it Busybodies who would do anything for nothing if it gave them a Power Trip?
It`s true what you say about people and power.
I`ve always maintained that if you give someone a skipped bonnet, a clipboard and get them to grow a moustache, especially a wee, 2×2
jet-black number, they would go power crazy.
I meant to say: look what happened to Hitler.
I keep looking at wee Sturgeon`s top lip for the first sign of growth.
I am a named person. I was originally in favour of using these powers in certain circumstances but after reading this post I really feel uncomfortable. I spoke to a parent to warn him that I was being put under pressure by the LA to use these powers. I’m also going to write to my Union to ask them if they will support education leaders in opposing this legislation.
The Union will already be experts on this and no doubt working on salary enhancements, pensionable if possible..all these modern unions are in to equality, diversity, equal pay, child care, ABORTION,poor me and have to be seen at the forefront of all modern thought.Waste of time…years ago it used to be about safeguarding jobs and terms and conditions, now it is about giving out discounts and credit cards….I used to be union rep by the way.
I am pleased that you see the danger in this legislation, not to mention the utterly unCatholic spirit behind it. If sufficient numbers of professionals, including the Teachers Union, take a united stand, I feel sure it will make all the difference. The State has no business interfering with family life to this degree, not even under the emotive pretext of child protection. To make every child a ward of the secular State to age eighteen, under a guardianship which is tantamount to a spy ring, was last seen in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. It is grossly intrusive State interference in family life for the purpose of moulding the minds and hearts of children in the image of the State. All freedom loving citizens have a duty to oppose this hienous legislation.
It’s shocking. We haven’t been asked if we want to do this and it isn’t part of our contract. However, no one really seem to be questioning it. It’s a little shocking that not more head teachers have questioned it.
What is really worrying is that questions are being asked of a parent’s mental capacity and once this is questioned then the named person powers are then invoked. It really is very dangerous.
I am delighted to read your two comments here; I hope that many other Head Teachers will be as brave, and challenge, in whatever way they possibly can, this dreadful and intrusive legislation.
As it happens, I am going to speak to an MSP about this Named Person legislation tomorrow.
I am doing so, as I will inform him, because I’ve been in discussions with a number of parents who are too terrified to approach a politician themselves, whilst being deeply concerned about the NP scheme. Concerns are rising now that news has broken about the eleven compulsory inspections of their parenting skills to take place before the child goes to school.
These parents are all genuinely terrified of drawing attention to themselves, of having their names noted and perhaps ending up on a social work register and their children marked as “at risk” or similar. Scotland is looking more and more totalitarian – a feature of the one-party State.
I’m not a parent; I’m a retired teacher who – were I still in the workplace – would absolutely refuse to spy on any parents. That I will tell him as well, although I’m not sure it will do any good. At least, though, he won’t be able to say that nobody has approached him about the issue.
CatholicTeacherScotland, your tactic of letting a parent know that you are under pressure to invoke these powers, is an excellent one, especially with parents who might tend to be un-cooperative. They will soon get the message that it’s a case of co-operate with the teachers/Head, or hand over your parental rights to a State Guardian.
You have our total support – please keep us informed.
Yes indeed! This is a very sinister and worrying development and a majority are walking blindly into it. The clue is in the absence of consultation with parents and teachers, not that it would have made much difference if the consultation on “gay marriage” is anything to go by. It is becoming ever clearer that the SNP are inclined towards a dictatorship model of government.
May I ask a question here…HOW MUCH IS THE NAMED PERSON BEING PAID BY THE STATE ?……no one in their right mind would take on such onerous and time consuming work FOR ZIPPO ? And how and at what cost will their be Professional Indemnity Insurance for such an individual ? I thought teachers were already overworked and taking homework home with them for correction…no matter what the arguments, why would anyone do this work for nothing?
Once the NP gets to find out that parents are, “in their opinion”,Bible Thumpers of any hue, the parents will be branded as intolerant bigots etc. They will pry in to the parents views and if seen to be Pro Life, anti gay marriage, potentially racist etc (just criticise Refugees for example) the famous black mark, the black spot of shame will appear on their copy book. This is more about the Parents than the child..the parents have to be re-educated..This is the best working example of Neuro Linguistic Programming out there..as you rightly say “parents are terrified of putting their heads above the parapet” and getting a black mark against their name…similar to the famous phrase 3 strikes and you are out.
I have now returned from the MSP’s surgery. I won’t name him as I do not want to identify my own location (some of you may remember that I was subject to a hate campaign some years ago and I do not wish to risk inviting another one! Especially one led by Scottish Government supporters!)
The MSP was civil and courteous and seemed very surprised to learn that I was there to represent parents who are too afraid (“terrified” is more accurate) to speak directly to him themselves, for fear of drawing attention to their opposition to the NP Scheme and thus finding themselves under suspicion. He asked me to assure them that issues raised by anyone who comes to his surgery are treated on a confidential basis – which was kinda hard to believe with the secretary scribbling away on her notepad the entire time. I should really have asked what happens to those notes, but it didn’t occur to me until later.
Early on in the interview he seemed ready to terminate the conversation, querying whether I am, in fact, a constituent – I assured him that I am, but it was evident at that stage that any questioning of the NP scheme was not something he welcomed.
Nevertheless, he did listen to the concerns I placed before him. My key question was about the eleven compulsory inspections of parental skills: who would conduct these inspections and on what basis, plus what qualifications did these “inspectors” possess for the task. He replied “I don’t know.” He said openly that he just didn’t know. At that point, I said that I would just jot that down in my notebook as I didn’t want to quote him and then find that this was denied, so I made the note in front of him (and the secretary) that he did not know anything about the eleven compulsory inspections of parenting skills.
The conversation then focused on the intrusive nature of the scheme, and I pointed out to him that we must work from first principles, and as a first principle the family unit is sacrosanct. Nobody has the right to violate the privacy of any family in their home life.
The first principle in the eyes of the Government, however, seems to be preventing child abuse, because, without contradicting me about family privacy, he immediately stressed that he didn’t want to see headlines such as the ones we’ve seen in the past, about abused children. I replied that in those cases (Baby P springs to mind) it was the Social Workers who had failed in their jobs, that the answer to dealing with possible abuse is to make sure that everyone does their job properly; if I saw or suspected abuse, I wouldn’t ring the Social Work department, I’d ring the police and leave them to take it further, if necessary.
He denied that the Named Peron could over-rule parents. When I insisted that it was written into the legislation, he asked me to send on the evidence, by email. He also said he would look at anything else that I chose to send, so I’m going to get cracking on that without delay.
I did say that I would inform the concerned parents known to me, that he was courteous and listened to what I had to say, albeit with the usual interruptions and red herrings thrown in, but, all in all, he was no Tim Sebastian, for which, “thank you, Lord!”
He just didn’t know ?…..I would not let these people take my dog for a walk. So far down the line and folks DON’T KNOW….I will go further than that..the “people in charge of anything of value, more often than not “don’t know what they don’t know”!…….think about that.
It’s already been thought about and prescribed for! ‘He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him’.
And if the Named Person is given a Financial Enhancement …is it PENSIONABLE !
No one seems to able to answer this question? The workload would be heavy..surely no one would work for nothing ?
We can watch the Supreme Court appeal hearing on the NP Scheme, live at 10.30 here
See also The Christian Institute and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland)
I’ve been following the Supreme Court hearing – saw quite a bit yesterday and a bit this morning. I’m going to have to close down shortly as I need to be elsewhere soon, but if this appeal is won, I’ll be stunned.
The lawyers arguing the case against the NP legislation are stuttering all over the place, ineffectual, failing to give examples of the dangers of this legislation – indeed, at one point yesterday, one of the Judges actually offered a couple of possible examples and the lawyer accepted one (a bad example – smoking) and then laughed at the other (the Judge said “what if some parents don’t have a TV in their house – lots of people don’t”) the lawyer laughed and said words to the effect “not in Scotland”. In fact, this is precisely a concern of parents known to me, who only have a TV set for DVD’s for their children.
So, based on what I’ve seen and heard in the live televised sessions, I’m not expecting the Supreme Court to rule against the NP legislation. If they do, it will be no thanks to the ineffectual legal representatives, in my opinion. Put it this way; if I’m ever charged with a serious crime, I wouldn’t want any of them to defend me. I’d send for Fr Arthur – his ability to defend the indefensible puts him in the lead as an excellent advocate if and when I’m charged with breaking the law of the land. The more serious the breach, the stronger his defence, given his support for Papa Francis no matter what he says or does. Yip. Fr Arthur, stand by…
My belief is that the judge or judges will already have been told by the government what judgment to make. It will not have been in so many words, just a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. There’s no way the NP legislation is going to be defeated, even if it does trample on the most fundamental of the so-called Charter on Human Rights ‘The right to a private family life without government intrusion’. I am ashamed of the people in this country who voted these SNP despots into power. They have no idea how to run a nation or treat the people justly and morally.
And we live in a Democracy ?
No. We don’t live in a democracy. We elect our dictators, that’s about the sum and substance of it.
Pity we didn’t have a Supreme Court Judge of the calibre of Antonin Scalia…..! and further I cannot understand why Ruth Davison and the other parties in Scotland are NOT using this as a weapon against Sturgeon….think of the mileage they could get out of that by getting this legislation to fail. Further not a cheep from down south who could surely use this to ridicule the Scottish Parliament….something else afoot I reckon.
The work load is not heavy. There is no financial payment. Local authorities change and adapt working conditions all the time. The unions are to blame for this. They are weak. What will happen when a Named Person is prosecuted for not “preventing abuse”? Will the unions then wake up?
Cost of such a claim would be horrendous as would the financial compensation to a family who were wrongly accused. Again back of an envelope cost /benefit analysis would have killed this stone dead. Don’t know why anyone would encourage such a waste of tax payer’s money and just for for the fiscal reasons alone….thought Councils were broke anyway? Can’t fix pot holes in the roads !
Do you agree with me, then, that this Named Person legislation is not a cause for concern in the sense that Heads and other NP appointees will not be constantly monitoring and making decisions about pupils, but that the danger lies, as when ANYTHING is legalised, in that once permitted by statute, the powers of the NP can be invoked?
In other words, just the fact that the powers are there, means that parents are at risk of being sidelined, given that in any given scenario, the NP must be informed (for example if a teenager is put on contraception, the doctor MUST tell the NP, but not the parents) – would you agree that that is the major concern with this NP law?
I thought Doctor/patient confidentiality was sacrosanct and 3rd parties were not given access to medical records? Maybe times have changed?
The Data Protection Act is supposed to be sacrosanct and yet the governement permits DVLA to sell your name and address to private car parking enforcement companies. There is no such thing today as confidentiality. The governement arrogates to itself the right to hand your personal details to anyone it chooses, for the right price.
Editor I think you have summed up the danger quite succinctly. I don’t think the fact that the powers won’t be used for the majority of pupils is a justification. The fact that the powers are legal and can be invoked at any time is deeply sinister.
Yes, that’s what I meant. I meant that the NP powers must be resisted at all costs, even though, as many have noted, the idea is ridiculous and unworkable. The fact that the powers are then to be invoked in law, is, indeed, deeply sinister.
You’ll probably find that the Union leaders’ silence has been bought.
Can Father Arthur enlighten us here on his views on the Named Person Scheme, given the comment he made that someone should not be allowed to Homeschool .
I didn’t take Fr Arthur’s comment literally when he remarked that Catholics who only present the saints as perfect human beings, omitting to mention their sins/faults,should not home-school or teach. I read it as a piece of hyperbole – an exaggeration to make a point. I am not his spokesperson, but I suspect he would share our concerns about the level of State interference in family life that the NP scheme represents. Don’t badger him. He’ll answer if and when he chooses.
Comments are closed.