"The thought that someone might mistakenly think you harmed your own child deliberately or that you failed in your duty of care is so terrible that you find yourself layering all sorts of unnecessary detail to prove the truth of your story...I suspect that`s why so many have reacted badly to the Scottish Government`s controversial `named person` scheme ...and why it is being challenged at the Supreme Court - at least partly"Deliberately harming a child is being conflated with failure in a duty of care. They are not quite the same thing and people do not react in the same way, thankfully, whether it is piling explanations on, or clamming up, otherwise we would all react the way public services often do when they are on the defensive: collaborate, accept no responsibility and make excuses. But it is interesting that Lesley Roberts brings this matter to the fore.
Having said that, the writer agrees that the term `wellbeing` is rather vague and parents are unsure how it`s supposed to work.
No wonder the campaign group No To Named Persons have had the confidence to take their fight to have the plans scrapped to the highest court in the land, despite losing two previous legal battles.
There`s no mention that those two legal battles were fought in front of Scottish judges who are intent on hiding their own issues and `conflicts of interests`. [ See A diary of Injustice ] If there is confidence by the campaign group - and I am sure there is, and should be - it`s because the legislation breaches Data protection and ECHR legislation which the writer slides over.
The article then goes on to confuse those vague `wellbeing` concerns with welfare concerns and protecting kids from harm - significant, of course - which is the remit of social workers, not Named Persons.
There`s no doubt we have to find better ways to protect kids from harm... What a shame it would be if the `named person` scheme is the right way but packaged wrongly.
 |
| Bailey Gwynne |
A low point is reached here:
When schoolboy Bailey Gwynne is stabbed to death by a pupil whose violence had been a huge concern before and who was known to carry knives, there`s a suggestion information should have been better shared....
The implication is that if there had been a Named Person in place with their data sharing capacity, the incident might never have occurred.
WRONG.
As the first commenter points out.
It should be noted that Aberdeen have been running the `Named Person` scheme since 2012. So the disturbed 16 year old who stabbed Bailey to death had a named person for 4 years who apparently failed to spot the serious issues with his `wellbeing`. By any measurement this is a quite spectacular failure of the scheme.
It`s also a spectacular own goal by Lesley Roberts, the writer of this article. When are the writers of these articles ever going to get the point that breaching data protection and human rights legislation protects nobody while putting everybody at risk?
Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/lesley-roberts-need-right-kids-7544597#r8vu1OdAOV7MiXes.99
Poll at 21.40 hours on 13 March 2016.
These people have put their objections into the judicial review of the Named Person scheme into the Supreme Court. Their names and organisations should never be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteSallyAnn Kelly, Chief Executive, Aberlour
Martin Crewe, Director, Barnardos Scotland
Alison Todd, Chief Executive, Children 1st
Jackie Brock, Chief Executive, Children in Scotland
Matt Forde, Director, NSPCC Scotland
Paul Carberry, Director, Action for Children Scotland
Satwat Rahman, Chief Executive, One Parent Families Scotland
Clare Simpson, Project Manager, Parenting Across Scotland
Maggie Simpson, Chief Executive, Scottish Child Minding Association
Seamus Searson, General Secretary, Scottish Secondary Teachers
Association
Alistair Gaw, President, Social Work Scotland
Theresa Fyffe, Director, Royal College of Nursing Scotland
http://www.aberlour.org.uk/news/946_childrens_charities_urge_supreme_court_throw_out_named_person_appeals?platform=hootsuite
Every one of the above signatories is of course funded by our taxes to peddle policy based evidence and they should hang their rentseeking heads in shame. At the Supreme Court hearing, the govt QC had to admit the chilling extent of the data theft behind the scheme after being quizzed by five top judges - something the givt and its apologists have been happy to lie about for years. Clan Childlaw's intervention left no one in any doubt that the duty of confidentiality has been dis-applied by this calculated, shoddy piece of anti-child and anti-family legislation, allowing teachers access to 'joined up' personal data, including sensitive medical data, on a mere whim. GIRFEC makes the Westminster snoopers' charter look benign by comparison!
ReplyDelete