He is soon put in his place by two commenters.
"If a child has additional support needs, then by definition (part of the CYP Act) they should have a lead professional whose role it is to co-ordinate the various services and inputs they need. (Of course the reality is that families up and down the country are seeing a reduction in the support they are able to access due to local authority cuts - but that is another topic altogether.) This blog conflates two issues - on one hand, that of providing a service for families who are asking for support and, on the other, the sharing of information between organisations and professionals without informed consent from the family or child. The Supreme Court ruling made it very clear that the latter is simply wrong and breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. In my view such sharing breaches trust and flies in the face of all the messages around partnership with families which are writ large across all other areas of policy. Of course information must be shared where there is risk of harm but that imperative exists within existing legislation - so the benefits of information sharing are still available where needed."
A fairly irate Parent who has been GIRFEC'd
"Thank you Eileen Prior for bringing some common sense. The CYP Act has some reasonable content but also has some rather crazy ideas. Mr Munro needs to ask for feedback about what is actually happening, and how cutting funding and increasing bureaucracy helps anyone. A lead professional is a useful role if there is a requirement for coordination. The named person is superfluous and confusing. Health visitors and guidance teachers already do their bit, they don't need extra 'powers'. What is Mr Munro's actual experience of the scheme? I have been in many GIRFEC meetings...as a parent. Not an easy experience. I gave up on the lead professional and the NP because I was better coordinating it myself. Says it all!! "
Read more http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/blogs/named-person-we-cant-lose-sight-of-the-benefits-of-information-sharing?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=Oktopost-twitter-profile&utm_campaign=Oktopost-2016-08+General+Campaign#QzhylhAzdv11Jhjo.99
In a previous post Calum Munro declared that home educators should not have been campaigning against the Named Person scheme. He could not have been any more wrong.
"By way of background to the legal challenge, home educating families in Scotland were among the first to point to the dangers of the data sharing free-for-all that was steamrollered into legislation in 2014 with virtually no scrutiny from MSPs, who were, frankly, either too thick to understand the far-reaching human rights implications or were complicit, despite being well warned by lawyers, grass roots groups and concerned constituents."
See also http://alicemooreuk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/calum-munro-adds-to-confusion.html