Comments about the named person

"CONTROVERSIAL plans to create a state-appointed "guardian" for all children across Scotland were passed at Holyrood ... "

"The change is also aimed at helping to spot health and emotional problems in the country’s children and provide better support for families."

"It means health visitors, midwives or school teachers will now take on the role of a "Named Person", with a duty of support for every youngster up to the age of 18 across Scotland..."

"`Children aren’t born with an ‘at risk’ sign on their heads – we have to have a system that does its very best not to allow children to slip through the gaps,` children’s minister Aileen Campbell said.
　

 Aileen Campbell and Michael Russell

Some Comments

"This is a gross and sinister infringement of family life and probably illegal and likely to pitch the "State guardian" against the parents if the former believes the latter's parenting does not conform to State regulations (Big Brother style) - a snoopers charter."

"Children arent born with an 'at risk' sign" - Really? Why do SW take some away at birth then?"

"Surely it is not just one "named person" per child. First it will be a midwife, then a health visitor, then a GP, then a teacher at each school the child attends. So we will then have to have hand over sessions as each threshold is passed, and that is assuming that the aforementioned "named person" does not move jobs, get promoted, have a career break, get laid off (unlikely, this, I grant you.) So the child has no continuity of care, which is one of the tenets of this ludicrous piece of legislation. Also, what happens if the parents of the child get a job elsewhere in the country, or even abroad (and I mean not just Carlisle) Will we, the taxpayer have to fund regular visits from the named person to Hong Kong or the US or wherever? Alternatively, perhaps we will no longer be allowed to further our career abroad without the consent of the named person?"

"In the event of something serious happening to a child, will the parent or the named person be held accountable/responsible?"

"'Named persons' will be employees of authorities with child protection respnsibilities. As employees, named persons will not be able to complain or blow the whistle about poor child protection practices by bodies such as local authorities."

"The SPSO confirms that the only persons in Scotland with any legal right to complain about inadequate or dangerous practices within a child protection service are:
The Child
The Parents/Carers"

"Should the practices of a child protection service eg a local authority expose a child to further risk from neglect or harm, there is no complaints or whistleblowing process that an employee/'named person' is eligible to access."

"Local authorities can legally ignore any complaints that an employee (named person) make to them about its own dangerous child protection practices. The SPSO and SCSWIS have no remit to investigate any complaint about child protection failures other than those made by children, parents & carers."

"'Named persons' will be in the same situation as current child protection staff - silenced about poor prctices within local government departments. They will of course have freedom to make as many complaints as they like about how private citizens are failing to protect & care for their children."

"The Minister referred to the case of Daniel Pelka. The poor practices by the local authority and other agencies who could & should have protected Daniel have been widely reported."

"A 'named person' who becomes aware that a child (like Daniel) who is at risk because child protection agencies are not taking appropriate action will have no means to complain about that situation. The Bill has failed to establish any legal 'right' for a 'named person' (an employee) to complain about failures to provide statutory child protection services."

"Therefore, children in Scotland will continue to be at risk from poor child protection practices by the bodies with remit to protect them."

"Health Minister Alex Neil has stated"

"People who see anything in the NHS going wrong or some practice applied that should not be, I want them to blow the whistle."

"It appears that the Scottish Government is preventing people who see anything 'going wrong or some practice applied that should not be' within a child protection agency from blowing the whistle."

"Practice failures by local authorities etc will continue to be covered up while an army of 'named persons' will now have the freedom to complain about private families."

Is "Children 1st" a charity or a "charity"?

It it a charity: a non-political entity staffed and run by volunteers out of the goodness of their heart out of caritas - love - and funded by monies raised freely by voluntary donations?

Or is it a "charity": a taxpayer funded sockpuppet organisation whose primary purpose is political activism and lobbying intended to vindicate the political decisions made by civil servants?

"I am so dumbfounded by this that I am not quite sure where to start.
1. Either this is going to cost the earth, in terms of time, paperwork, case reviews, or it is going to be a rubber stamping exercise - still expensive, but at least it will be less intrusive
2. I know that I have no say over the appointment of my child's guardian, but I assume that he / she / it will have first hand experience of raising children.
3. What happens if my child actively dislikes their appointed angel? Will the State assume that I have poisoned my child's mind?
4. Will the guardian be required to provide political guidance to my child?
5. The State must have the worst track record of child rearing of anybody - kicking children out of the home aged 16!. would it not be better if they sorted their own house, before taking on this insane project?
6. Oh and then there are the commentators. According to the CEO of Children 1st "The law now gives them rights to call on professionals when they need advice, information and support" What planet is this woman on? I did not realise that hitherto I did not have the RIGHT to speak to my child's GP, or Health Visitor, or Teacher?
Last one out, please switch off the windmill.

We have seen examples of the work of the RSPCC, now renamed Children 1st. Prior to being renamed Children 1st the RSPCC was a main player in the forcible removal of children from their homes and attempts to have them confirm entirely fictitious events made up by social workers. This was the Orkney Scandal. These are, I think, facts established by a Public Enquiry conducted by Lord Clyde.The change of name took place after the Enquiry.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/holyrood-brings-in-new-laws-for-child-protection-1-3312944