Saturday, 27 August 2016

The contradictions of the Named Person scheme

"Maybe this headline says it all," says UK Column`s Brian Gerrish. "They are apparently worried that they`ve broken the law. This is Chief Constable Philip Gormley, the man at the top now. And I just found this, well laughable; but of course it`s black humour. They`re worried because they`ve been participating in the Named Person scheme, the guardian plan. They could have broken the law. So we`ve got Police Scotland in a bit of a tizz here, David."

"Asking the Scottish Government to reassure them that they are compliant with the requirements of the European Convention of Human Rights, you would hope I would have thought in my naivety that Police Scotland might have been able to form a robust and independent view on whether they`re actually breaking the law."

"Before they acted is the key thing." Gerrish adds.

"Before they acted, and the suggestion here is that something might have changed. You know that going forward: are we breaking the law, are we compliant? That`s not the question. The question is: we`ve been rolling this out for the last three, four years in huge swathes of Scotland affecting hundreds of thousands of families. If we have been breaking the European Convention of Human Rights and the Data Protection Act, well, what position does that put Police Scotland in?"

There`s laughter in the UK Column studio.

"Legally, it`s not very good. In terms of claims, it might not be very good. In terms of public confidence, catastrophic, potentially."
Gerrish moves the argument forward: "Well if we have a look at the sort of confidence in the police, who is training them? We`ve shown this before but it was some time ago. Let`s bring her up on screen. Who do we have running police training? We`ve got Professor Shirley Pearce CBE, a clinical psychologist, a so-called independent chair of the College of Policing. Why do we need a psychologist running policing? And if we just have a look at this:"

"Achieving our ambition. To achieve our ambition we will extend our networks beyond the traditional boundaries of policing - Does that mean falsifying internal reports and misrepresenting yourself to the public? Is that leading beyond authority that she`s encouraging here? It`s quite remarkable isn`t it? And then we`ve got the same attitude coming up in the Scottish Government. Now you`ve produced these excellent articles here. We`ve got: The Named Person Provision has been suspended. That`s reported, Holyrood, and of course the man in the picture is John Swinney."


"But at the same time Holyrood is going to push ahead with the Named Person plan. So we don`t know whether it`s unlawful. The police don`t know whether it`s unlawful. But the government`s going to push ahead with it. So they`re above the law."


David Scott elaborates: "This is a plan that Aidan O'Neill QC for the No to the Named Person campaign described memorably as: `Doing my head in, like wrestling with an octopus`. Well it remains an octopus because it is suspended and pushing ahead. Simultaneously."

"It`s suspended. It`s being pushed ahead. It`s unlawful. No it`s not unlawful. But it gets better because parents have now got to co-operate. It`s those nasty parents. So this was a headline here which you brought across in the Press and Journal. Parents must co-operate for the guardian scheme to be effective. So Mr Swinney says those very nasty parents won`t co-operate. They`re horrible, despicable people; they must. But we also need the abuser. Guardian scheme won`t work if the abusers opt out. My head was in a spin at this point David."

More laughter from David Scott: "It`s ridiculous. It`s got to be voluntary because, you know, Nicola Sturgeon has promised this is voluntary and it requires everyone to co-operate because if the abusers don`t co-operate then the scheme doesn`t work. You`re just left monitoring closely the ninety nine percent of parents who actually do look after their kids and spending all your resources on that and not having anything left for the actual small number who are dangerous, neglectful or abusive. And this is meant to require co-operation and Mr Swinney says it was based on co-operation."

"It was based on nothing of the sort. It was based on: `It`s happening whether you want it or not. You`re a minion. Know your place,` is what it was based on. And since the Supreme Court has pointed out that that`s unlawful what are we getting now? We don`t know. All of the inconsistencies and contradictions that`s involved in this octopus-like legislation are now being shown in all of their unseemly glory to the Scottish public. And the Press and Journal had an opinion piece ... the conclusion of which was this scheme should be scrapped, and scrapped now. And that`s very much the view that most thinking people in Scotland are taking. But not Mr Swinney.... I think the phrase is: `This organisation does not tolerate failure,` Brian..."

"Well I`m going to sum it up by saying we`ve got a Scottish government that appears to have brought in legislation which is against the law. They`ve broken the law. And the same Scottish government just uses the police and social services to come along and steal four of your children. So Scottish government, this is not a government, this is a fiefdom; it`s a criminal fiefdom and it`s now clearly above the law."


  1. Why can't I publish my comment under name and email address? Has anyone contacted the "real" Sgt Sam Buchan to sort this nonsense out?

  2. Your comment has successfully appeared here with your name as `Anonymous.` But I`m a bit unsure what you mean.

    Where was it you were you trying to publish your comment to? You refer to Sgt Sam Buchan but that actually refers to the `Docherty family` posts, not this one really.

    Your question is a good one. I think it would be a good idea to refer to the UK Column website who are coordinating information about the Docherty case. They should be able to tell you if anyone has contacted the `real` Sgt Sam Buchan.