Friday, 15 April 2016

Sturgeon is in no hurry to address concerns

"Campaigners against the controversial named person policy have challenged the First Minister over `confusing and inaccurate statements` made about the scheme..."
"They wrote to Nicola Sturgeon requesting a meeting on April 1 but say they have `not even received the courtesy of an acknowledgement` to their letter..."

"Opponents say these `state guardians` risk intruding into the private lives of families, but the Scottish Government argues the service will act as a safety net to help families and children if they need it."

"No2NP spokesman Simon Calvert said: `We all want children to be safeguarded from abuse, and we all want families to have access to the services they need. But the named person scheme is not the answer to those problems...`"

"Ms Sturgeon has described the scheme as `good and sensible`, but has said parents are not legally obliged to use it. In March, she told MSPs at Holyrood: `The named person scheme is an entitlement, I think it is a good and sensible entitlement. It is not an obligation...`"

"But campaigners fear the scheme could be compulsory, with no ability for parents to opt out..."
"With an election looming and this issue assuming increasing importance, I would have hoped the First Minister might have engaged with the campaign and answered our questions."

"An SNP spokesman said: `The First Minister’s office has received this letter and will respond in due course.`"

`In due course` is disdainful of the Scottish public is it not ?

Leslie Scott from Tymes Trust and part of the NO2NP campaign has been voicing real concerns:
"What this legislation means for every family in Scotland is that state employees will have the authority, power and duty regardless of parental consent - to monitor every child’s ‘wellbeing’ (nothing to do with child welfare systems) against outcomes as dictated by government. The legislation includes no definition of wellbeing and ultimately decisions will be made on the Named Person’s subjective opinion..."
"This is a universal compulsory scheme with no opt out. If parents are not `compliant` this could result in them being flagged up as showing ‘resistance’ or ‘limited engagement’, both of which are risk indicators in the wellbeing assessment process. But parents declining advice will not stop the Named Person carrying out their functions as stated in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, to gather and share personal even sensitive information on every child and all associated adults and to intervene..."
"It is therefore hugely concerning that within the wellbeing assessment process are 304 wellbeing signifiers including that: `the child/young person, along with parents/carers is compliant with treatment for any illnesses, diseases, chronic conditions or impairments`. This is one signifier of many that illustrates compulsion at the heart of this legislation."
Of course, Leslie Scott`s concern comes from her understanding of ME sufferers who are often misdiagnosed. Compulsory mistreatment would not be acceptable.

But there are concerns for the wider public too: For instance, is there not a danger that `must comply with treatment or be considered a risk` will become `must comply with the vaccination programme?` Great for the pharmaceutical industry but a disaster for parents and children who want to take a more considered approach.

Must comply: It`s a slippery slope which the legislation allows.

No comments:

Post a Comment