FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Scotland

Nominated oerson

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I haven't seen this topic on here or discussed on social media yet.

What's your thoughts on the SNPs Nominated Person, the plan to give a huge responsibility of your child's life to a head teach at a school etc. With decision making power in every aspect of the family life surrounding the child being basically removed from parents and placed into a strangers hands I really don't like it. Maybe I don't know enough of it... Thoughts friends?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Fucking spelling mistake in the post title.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Unsure about this. In a normal family it wouldn't be needed I don't think . But in a family in need ie if parents have drug or alcohol addicts then this type if thing could come in handy for the kids involved

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Unsure about this. In a normal family it wouldn't be needed I don't think . But in a family in need ie if parents have drug or alcohol addicts then this type if thing could come in handy for the kids involved "

This is spot on, but looking into the past and even recent times with the social works performances... It seems the middle class families are the ones with all the interference and the junkies are left to mistreat kids left right and centre.

Schools are now wanting detailed reports from parents when kids are off for a day, yet no-ones hassling the parents of the youngsters who are kicking about at home everyday or out in the streets at 10pm etc..will the nominated person be any different?

This is 100% true, when I split with my ex two years ago she got a call from the school head teacher expressing 'concern' that my daughter had told her teacher I chase her in the house, grab her and hold her down. Turns out her teacher completely ignored the fact that my daughter was talking about the weekend when we were playing hide and seek and play fight tickles with my daughter and my wee boy....I was not happy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My understanding of it (limited I grant you) is that it's main purpose is to track a child through the course of his/her education to see that they don't fall out of the system. Having worked in education for almost 20 years I can't believe that it is in an H/T's remit to do much more.To me it seems another unnecessary burdon on the education service which in my belief will achieve very little. Other agencies are much better placed. But I need to learn more...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ald EagleMan
over a year ago

Alloa

The whole NP scheme is flawed, as proven up north where on the of the designated NPs has been placed on the Sex Offenders register for offences against children.

legally there is no opt out despite the claims of the FM, who avoids answering when asked directly. claims that parents can choose not to take the NP advice/ interference is incorrect. I for one have no confidence in the HT who is due to be my kids designated NP & as such my kids have been told to refuse to comply, be interviewed or answer invasive questions unless myself or my wife are present.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The whole NP scheme is flawed, as proven up north where on the of the designated NPs has been placed on the Sex Offenders register for offences against children.

legally there is no opt out despite the claims of the FM, who avoids answering when asked directly. claims that parents can choose not to take the NP advice/ interference is incorrect. I for one have no confidence in the HT who is due to be my kids designated NP & as such my kids have been told to refuse to comply, be interviewed or answer invasive questions unless myself or my wife are present."

I definitely need to do my homework! What a crazy and dangerous sounding practice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issBehavingxxWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Unsure about this. In a normal family it wouldn't be needed I don't think . But in a family in need ie if parents have drug or alcohol addicts then this type if thing could come in handy for the kids involved "

Problem is.... it's not just kids from families with "issues".

It's every child....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

It does perhaps seem overkill but there have been quite a few occasions when children have fallen through the social net and ended up being abused or worse. It might help prevent these occasions although I don't really see how people like head teachers can take this on as yet another role.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Unsure about this. In a normal family it wouldn't be needed I don't think . But in a family in need ie if parents have drug or alcohol addicts then this type if thing could come in handy for the kids involved

Problem is.... it's not just kids from families with "issues".

It's every child.... "

GIRFEC - getting it right for every child

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It does perhaps seem overkill but there have been quite a few occasions when children have fallen through the social net and ended up being abused or worse. It might help prevent these occasions although I don't really see how people like head teachers can take this on as yet another role."

I believe some schools will have a teacher dedicated to GIRFEC

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"My understanding of it (limited I grant you) is that it's main purpose is to track a child through the course of his/her education to see that they don't fall out of the system. Having worked in education for almost 20 years I can't believe that it is in an H/T's remit to do much more.To me it seems another unnecessary burdon on the education service which in my belief will achieve very little. Other agencies are much better placed. But I need to learn more... "

I agree on this too, whilst I genuinely feel it's disgustingly unfair on parents to have their parental power and decision making for what is best for their child taken away and placed into the lap of an outsider I think it's also a bit of a piss take for teachers who are already underpaid and over worked.

There is already enough pressure on teachers in our schools without giving them the added responsibility of huge decision making within a child's life. I also think that the FM may not be fully clued up in the ins and outs of it too as she does avoid all questions regarding the NP.

There's currently a phone in interview with Kay Adams speaking to a MP from the SNP regarding the nominated persons act doing the rounds on social media and YouTube. It's a very revealing few minutes worth a listen

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wiftieeMan
over a year ago

near Glasgow

From what I've read, it's another example of the SNP abusing their position in a majority government.

Yes there are children 'falling through the net', but the only solution the SNP can come up with is this??

There's already a system/solution in place, Social Work, which could maybe do it's job more efficiently and effectively if it was properly funded and resourced.

Scots need to waken up and see just exactly what is happening under their noses, the SNP are a law unto themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I think your maybe going off the deep end a little there buddy. For me it's the only thing they have came up with that I don't particularly like.

Going off topic for a moment, I think people who are currently wanting to vote the tories or labour and even the flag in the wind which follows whoever blows the most wind Liberal Dems, must be insane. All three of these parties are currently moaning and basing their Scottish election campaigns around the SNPs lack of use for the very new powers we now have....powers Scotland has that none of those three parties even wanted. There it is in an idiot proof nutshell.

Back to the nominated person, it's not right. It will not target the few who are living in poverty or have shit parents, it will only interfere with your average household going through the testing times. Those are currently the only families who have faced fines and court for kids missing school, we never see a junkie being hit with a court order for their bastard ned teenager not attending home economics class...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think your maybe going off the deep end a little there buddy. For me it's the only thing they have came up with that I don't particularly like.

Going off topic for a moment, I think people who are currently wanting to vote the tories or labour and even the flag in the wind which follows whoever blows the most wind Liberal Dems, must be insane. All three of these parties are currently moaning and basing their Scottish election campaigns around the SNPs lack of use for the very new powers we now have....powers Scotland has that none of those three parties even wanted. There it is in an idiot proof nutshell.

Back to the nominated person, it's not right. It will not target the few who are living in poverty or have shit parents, it will only interfere with your average household going through the testing times. Those are currently the only families who have faced fines and court for kids missing school, we never see a junkie being hit with a court order for their bastard ned teenager not attending home economics class..."

Don't you think you are being a bit harsh & judgemental? Some 'junkies' as you put it make very good parents. Parents from middle class families are just as capable of neglecting their children & are able to carry on working despite being functioning alcoholics or have a drug addiction. Domestic abuse can occur in any family environment regardless of social class & as a result none our children should not experience this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think your maybe going off the deep end a little there buddy. For me it's the only thing they have came up with that I don't particularly like.

Going off topic for a moment, I think people who are currently wanting to vote the tories or labour and even the flag in the wind which follows whoever blows the most wind Liberal Dems, must be insane. All three of these parties are currently moaning and basing their Scottish election campaigns around the SNPs lack of use for the very new powers we now have....powers Scotland has that none of those three parties even wanted. There it is in an idiot proof nutshell.

Back to the nominated person, it's not right. It will not target the few who are living in poverty or have shit parents, it will only interfere with your average household going through the testing times. Those are currently the only families who have faced fines and court for kids missing school, we never see a junkie being hit with a court order for their bastard ned teenager not attending home economics class...

Don't you think you are being a bit harsh & judgemental? Some 'junkies' as you put it make very good parents. Parents from middle class families are just as capable of neglecting their children & are able to carry on working despite being functioning alcoholics or have a drug addiction. Domestic abuse can occur in any family environment regardless of social class & as a result none our children should not experience this."

No, I don't think I'm being judgemental in the slightest, to be fair I think my post is pretty factual. Some 'junkies' may make fantastic parents in your eyes but the fact that's there's a huge possibility of having drugs around children is a massive massive problem to me.

Il avoid any forum argument that I can't be arsed with by saying its a matter of personal opinion...which ofcourse isn't a lie

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndykayMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

I believe it's yet another layer of beuocracy that we don't need. And yet another thing to be lumped on to the already overworked shoulders of head teachers.

My kids have friends who they worry about let alone me. Luckily these kids have had people to look out for them and I've spoken to schools about several of them I've been concerned about. But the schools already have systems in place.

Maybe if we invested more in children's services we would avoid the shameful lapses in judgement and responsibility when a child falls off the radar.

Just my opinion mind

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Indeed all schools should and do have Care & Welfare Policies and guidelines already in place which work very effectively in collaboration with other agencies to flag up and deal with a multitude of needs. In my humble and more than a little bit biased opinion GIRFEC in schools should cover educational needs only. Headteachers are not social workers although I've met a few who thought they should be. I've also met more than one H/T more in need of intervention than any pupils. Brings on the fear. But that's another story.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow (for now)

From personal bitter experience, the whole system needs root and branch reform.

It is not fit for purpose and the Named Persons act is just another bit of political flim flam designed to show that they are 'doing something'.

Problem is, they are doing the wrong thing. This act is not optional for children. It's supposedly 'optional' for parents. {bollox}

So if the named person makes 'recommendations/suggestions' and you as a parent do not act on those 'recommendations/suggestions' thinking them to be intrusive or unwarranted, you are not going to end up on some 'watch list'?

Quote:-

b) in the case a family is unwilling to engage, consider in light of the information the Named Person has, whether the concern about the child’s wellbeing is significant enough to activate their obligations under law to promote, support and safeguard the child’s wellbeing. In this case they will need to consider what further action might be appropriate in consultation as necessary with relevant colleagues.

End quote

These people will have the right to access your childrens medical records, ask them personal questions re: their 'wellbeing', health and sexuality and give them advice and direction.

Yet you, as a parent, have no right to interrogate the Named Person to see if He/She is a fit and proper person to give advice to your child.

This smacks of - 'Nanny Nic Knows Best'

I await my next 'visitation' with trepidation, my dealings with SS have been less than stellar. In fact it almost cost me my family, all because someone I never met, had 'concerns'.

When I finally found out what those concerns were, (after 4 months, a denied FOI and threats of my being taken to court), they were so pathetic I almost walked out on my family.

This law will wreck more families than it helps - it should be abandoned now.

If children are slipping though the net 18 times, what are you going to do if they slip through this net? Chip them all?

Beep, Beep, Beep?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge

The portion I see as wrong is a nom person having sway over a childs life that they know very little about. Dont get me wrong its a noble idea but one thats flawed at its core you cant give extra people guardian type powers over others children. Im quite sure the proposed named persons are none to impressed at the flak they will be recieving.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Given that I am likely to end up as one of these responsible people I'm not to keen on it :/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *fcouple3343Couple
over a year ago

hamilton

school holidays add up to around 3 months a year, what happens then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I haven't seen this topic on here or discussed on social media yet.

What's your thoughts on the SNPs Nominated Person, the plan to give a huge responsibility of your child's life to a head teach at a school etc. With decision making power in every aspect of the family life surrounding the child being basically removed from parents and placed into a strangers hands I really don't like it. Maybe I don't know enough of it... Thoughts friends?"

This is so far from the truth it's unbelievable. How you describe it is nothing how it works at all. Pure and utter scare mungering at it's worst!

It takes away none of the rights or responsibilities of a parent! FACT!

If you actually read it properly and seen how it was being actioned, you would be in full support of it.

Kids fall through the net every day, this will help stop that in a big way.

It will also help parents who are concerned about their own child development.

It will make it easier for members of the public to report their concerns too. one person to get all the concerns, seeing the bigger picture. Rather than lots of different professional getting we bits of info and never connecting the dots to get the bigger picture.

Again, this takes away non of the rights or responsibilities of the parents. What it actually is about is taking the pressure off social work, so they can concentrate on the most serious cases. Education and Health are being ask to do their do and take responsibility, after years of avoiding it and using social work as a dumping ground.

Remember it's everyone's job to make sure children are alright. We need to get it right for every child.

This is a good thing, if you only stop and know what your talking about. This has been over 10 years in the making.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndykayMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

But as a parent im still not convinced that this extra workload should be put on teachers.

I want them to concentrate on educating my kids. Not being social workers too.

I'd rather we invest more in social work and expand it so that they can actually do the job they are meant to do instead of picking up the pieces because they are too under resourced to keep an eye on every one properly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

It's complete overkill.

The solution is to improve information sharing between agencies (something that has been happening for a while now) to ensure that children who require assistance/ intervention get it.

Instead of focusing on children who require this the government decide instead that every single family should have a named person and it isn't needed. It's another example of the state here getting involved in people's lives (and it's happening more and more)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I haven't seen this topic on here or discussed on social media yet.

What's your thoughts on the SNPs Nominated Person, the plan to give a huge responsibility of your child's life to a head teach at a school etc. With decision making power in every aspect of the family life surrounding the child being basically removed from parents and placed into a strangers hands I really don't like it. Maybe I don't know enough of it... Thoughts friends?

This is so far from the truth it's unbelievable. How you describe it is nothing how it works at all. Pure and utter scare mungering at it's worst!

It takes away none of the rights or responsibilities of a parent! FACT!

If you actually read it properly and seen how it was being actioned, you would be in full support of it.

Kids fall through the net every day, this will help stop that in a big way.

It will also help parents who are concerned about their own child development.

It will make it easier for members of the public to report their concerns too. one person to get all the concerns, seeing the bigger picture. Rather than lots of different professional getting we bits of info and never connecting the dots to get the bigger picture.

Again, this takes away non of the rights or responsibilities of the parents. What it actually is about is taking the pressure off social work, so they can concentrate on the most serious cases. Education and Health are being ask to do their do and take responsibility, after years of avoiding it and using social work as a dumping ground.

Remember it's everyone's job to make sure children are alright. We need to get it right for every child.

This is a good thing, if you only stop and know what your talking about. This has been over 10 years in the making.

"

You have had a right hard go at me with this post which I think a little heavy handed however I would urge you to go and listen to some SNP interviews in the subject and read a bit more about it before coming the twat at me unprovoked. Opinion is one thing but being a dick is another.

I am an SNP supporter and after growing up in care in all for positive changes but the nominated person and the ins & outs of it are wide open to interpretation, this is because each and every interview and statement released by the party all contradict each other.

If prefer it if you dropped the unprovoked attitude with me tbh, it's just a fucking forum thread, simmer and chill out, it's nearly the weekend

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Again, this takes away non of the rights or responsibilities of the parents. What it actually is about is taking the pressure off social work, so they can concentrate on the most serious cases. Education and Health are being ask to do their do and take responsibility, after years of avoiding it and using social work as a dumping ground."

I have no idea how you can accuse Education of avoiding responsibility when firm and fast guidelines are in place to flag up the smallest concern. I take great exception, having adhered to care and welfare policies many times with successful outcomes. It's about better communication between agencies rather than including families who are not in any need to an already bulging register.

My grandson has no need of an NP. He has two very vocal grannies!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow


""Again, this takes away non of the rights or responsibilities of the parents. What it actually is about is taking the pressure off social work, so they can concentrate on the most serious cases. Education and Health are being ask to do their do and take responsibility, after years of avoiding it and using social work as a dumping ground."

I have no idea how you can accuse Education of avoiding responsibility when firm and fast guidelines are in place to flag up the smallest concern. I take great exception, having adhered to care and welfare policies many times with successful outcomes. It's about better communication between agencies rather than including families who are not in any need to an already bulging register.

My grandson has no need of an NP. He has two very vocal grannies!!! "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Given that I am likely to end up as one of these responsible people I'm not to keen on it :/ "

I'd like to think those being given the position would be getting full support with it, training etc and a bloody wage bump. It's a lot of responsibility and with the general public opinion on it, the first mistake made will be all over the papers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndykayMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"Given that I am likely to end up as one of these responsible people I'm not to keen on it :/

I'd like to think those being given the position would be getting full support with it, training etc and a bloody wage bump. It's a lot of responsibility and with the general public opinion on it, the first mistake made will be all over the papers."

You'd like to think so, but don't bet on it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Clearly you have no idea, as this doesn't add any kids what so ever to why register!

Your next point, this is exactly what the named person does. faciliates better communication and joint working between the agencies. By having a single point of contact using the my world triangle.

It's really a simple concept that 99.9% of the population won't see any difference what-so-ever. As parents, family, friends and universal services more than meet kids needs allow them to thrive. The only inpact will be for the children failing to thrive, for whatever reason. This will stop kids falling through the net. If it saves one child's life then it's a good thing!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Clearly you have no idea, as this doesn't add any kids what so ever to why register!

Your next point, this is exactly what the named person does. faciliates better communication and joint working between the agencies. By having a single point of contact using the my world triangle.

It's really a simple concept that 99.9% of the population won't see any difference what-so-ever. As parents, family, friends and universal services more than meet kids needs allow them to thrive. The only inpact will be for the children failing to thrive, for whatever reason. This will stop kids falling through the net. If it saves one child's life then it's a good thing! "

So itl be just me on the thread with no idea simply because my opinion is different to yours...but just me, no-one else who hasn't agreed with you.. Aye ok

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think I'm the one who "has no idea" so I'll just pop off in my ignorance and leave the experts to it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think I'm the one who "has no idea" so I'll just pop off in my ignorance and leave the experts to it. "

But you don't have any idea...neither do I....maybe they don't. Who really knows, the joys of independent thought

The ideal idea is to probably just leave the thread be, when posts turn arsey it's best to go vote at who we would kiss or avoid

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just hope all those who find themselves taking up this role are suited to it and are fair minded individuals with the child's welfare at the forefront of their actions and not just those happy to "wield the big stick".

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I just hope all those who find themselves taking up this role are suited to it and are fair minded individuals with the child's welfare at the forefront of their actions and not just those happy to "wield the big stick". "

Iv got a big stick.....ok,Iv got an average stick...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I just hope all those who find themselves taking up this role are suited to it and are fair minded individuals with the child's welfare at the forefront of their actions and not just those happy to "wield the big stick".

Iv got a big stick.....ok,Iv got an average stick... "

Stay behind after class please!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *vbride1963TV/TS
over a year ago

E.K . Glasgow

Glad my kids are older now but hopefully the problems with NP'S will be sorted before I get any grandkids . If it's headteachers as someone else said what happens during the holidays ?

It does seem to be state intrusion in some ways will wait and see how things pan out in the long run .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andG4moreCouple
over a year ago

Dunbartonshire


"I just hope all those who find themselves taking up this role are suited to it and are fair minded individuals with the child's welfare at the forefront of their actions and not just those happy to "wield the big stick". "

Totally agree with this as my kids primary HT was a total bully to 2 of my kids who disiplined them for the minor of things and singled them out. Got so bad I made a formal complaint to education dep who upheld my complaint.

One of kids regularly visit pastoral care at high school now feeling undervalued as a consequence of this persons actions and this person could end up a NP aye right.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How the names person is going to work in practice is as follows. Two examples, how it is currently and how the names person changes things.

First how it is currently. Say public health nurse or GP or whoever gets a minor concern (say the child has lost a wee bit of weight), and speaks to their manage. Nothing major, just a small concern. Not at a threshold to contact social work. So they hold onto it and keep a wee extra eye on the child. At the same time, some issues arise in school, again fairly minor (loss of concertation in class, maybe a wee bit more challenging) and the teacher speaks to the head. Again, not enough to contact social work. But again decide to keep a wee extra eye on the kid. Maybe a member of the public notices something at home, some loud shouting and not sure who to call, but decided to call social work. Again nothing major, only a family arguements and nothing been reported to social work before. They don't follow up every family arguements so no action.

Outcome, nothing really gets done for the child. No one puts all the information together. They are not supported at all. They struggle on and are potentially punished more at school. As they may decided to take a firmer line on slight increase in challenging behaviour to nip it in the bud.

Now, with the names person the health visitor / GP will contact the head teacher, who will already have information from their own teacher. Then they will get a call from social work passing on the info from member of the public. Suddenly the head teacher knows the kid is losing weight, lacking concentration, increased challenging behaviour and loud arguements at home. This allows the head teacher to complete one form, a request for assistance which she can send to any agency she wants or sent to a local multi-agency child meeting.

Just now there are hundreds of referral forms. Part of this GIRFEC, is getting that down to just one for. Also language is important. It's a request for assistance, not refer on (nothing to do with me anyone). The named person is a key part of GIRFEC. which came out of it's everyone's job to make sure I'm ok.

The most serious cases will always be worked fairly well, as everyone knows the risks are high and interagency working is good. But the grey cases, the border line cases often get missed and these children really suffer the most and are impacted the most.

Lots if issues with the system. And the rights or wrongs of how it is just now, and why that info is not shared more effectively are a totally different debate around data protection and private laws etc. but it is what it is just now, the named person should help as described above.

As said previously, this impacts none of parents responsibilities or rights.

SNP, might not be explaining it that well because they are not practicing it and seeing how it will be implemented in the small details.

For someone who has lived and breathed this for nearly 6 years now. Across various levels and scope of work. From front line to policy and training. I can only say, this is a huge step forward in making sure all the children in Scotland thrive!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ald EagleMan
over a year ago

Alloa

[Removed by poster at 01/04/16 12:13:08]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ald EagleMan
over a year ago

Alloa

Consider this question, then try to fathom a rational answer.

The SNP deem people under 18 as so vulnerable/ immature that they require a Named Person to look after their interests.

At the same time they deem 16 & 17yr olds mature enough to vote.

Is this where the SNP NP ensures the young person's "best interests" are met by instructing them who to vote for?

And if they dont comply, are they then subjected to additional scrutiny/ interference in their lives?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow (for now)

Bol lo ox.

Just another layer of admin to cover the political brown roses for when another kid slips through the net.

Bet when a parent refuses to cooperation they'll be added to some watch list.

Optional - for parents -not!

This goes live soon across the country, several nhs boards have yet to recruit and train sufficient health visitors to hit the visiting targets for kids under 5. If they can't hit that target, what hope they'll hit any others.

As the Scotsmans April fool today proposed, why don't you just chip all kids and that way none will slip thought the fingers of the state.

After all "If you've nothing to hide......"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge

Now, with the names person the health visitor / GP will contact the head teacher, who will already have information from their own teacher. Then they will get a call from social work passing on the info from member of the public. Suddenly the head teacher knows the kid is losing weight, lacking concentration, increased challenging behaviour and loud arguements at home. This allows the head teacher to complete one form, a request for assistance which she can send to any agency she wants or sent to a local multi-agency child meeting.......So you dont see the conflict with a non parent being contacted with medical info and this np will make decisions based on info from all these agencys......is the well being of a child not primarily a parents responsibility ? Some folk may require assistance. And is the underfunded social services not what is required. im gonna stick my neck on the block and say most decent folk would hate for a nobody to be interfering in their childs life.as many have said the wording leaves it open to interpretation and there are always folk whos interpretation is miles away from what was intended

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The child's medical information is not the right of the parent. But the right of the child.

This was just one example. Feel free to try and pull it apart. You say social services are underfunded. But fundamentally social workers are not qualified in mental health, physical health nor education. Social Work and Social Care always have to work in partnership with these agents as they are not trained or skilled in delivering them. So no, ultimately the doing part of any intervention plan always falls at the feels of health or education. So increasing social worker budget or numbers does not equate to less work for health or education.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

health, social work and education have a duty to be open and honest. To work in partnership with parents and or gardians. So the example I gave, maybe a phone call home from the head or the teacher to discuss with the family. Outcome of this maybe no further action required.

You refer to decent folk, well the reality of this is. If your child's needs are being met. Which the majority are, then you will never come contact with this. Information will not be shared (because there is no need for it). You really have nothing to worry about it.

As states earlier. Major of kids needs are met. Then the opposite end of spectrum is not fine. But everyone works together as risks so high. Where the gap hits and kids fall through the net is the boarder line cases, where information is not shared effectively and things are missed.

Now this does move some burden / responsibility away from social work to health / education. However, it is every easily argued that this is where the burden should have been in the first place as they are in the best position to assess and intervene where required.

A lot of professional who are actively practices in this area are happy about this and see it as a good thing. There are others, who like everywhere, hate change etc. but from personal experience practitioners are on the most part positive about this.

Now for every lay person who doesn't approve of this. Rather than just moan about it and say it's not right. Come up with a realist alternative to protect those boardline kids who fall though the net, that works. As when a kids falls through the net, it hit the papers like the Sun, who vilify social works, health and education for not saving the kids life. As this is what the professionals are asking for to fix it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge


"health, social work and education have a duty to be open and honest. To work in partnership with parents and or gardians. So the example I gave, maybe a phone call home from the head or the teacher to discuss with the family. Outcome of this maybe no further action required.

You refer to decent folk, well the reality of this is. If your child's needs are being met. Which the majority are, then you will never come contact with this. Information will not be shared (because there is no need for it). You really have nothing to worry about it.

As states earlier. Major of kids needs are met. Then the opposite end of spectrum is not fine. But everyone works together as risks so high. Where the gap hits and kids fall through the net is the boarder line cases, where information is not shared effectively and things are missed.

Now this does move some burden / responsibility away from social work to health / education. However, it is every easily argued that this is where the burden should have been in the first place as they are in the best position to assess and intervene where required.

A lot of professional who are actively practices in this area are happy about this and see it as a good thing. There are others, who like everywhere, hate change etc. but from personal experience practitioners are on the most part positive about this.

Now for every lay person who doesn't approve of this. Rather than just moan about it and say it's not right. Come up with a realist alternative to protect those boardline kids who fall though the net, that works. As when a kids falls through the net, it hit the papers like the Sun, who vilify social works, health and education for not saving the kids life. As this is what the professionals are asking for to fix it. "
so many ifs ands or buts the simple thing for me is I wouldnt want people interfering in the raising of my children as I see fit not how the nanny state decides it will happen. Its a long way from big brother but it is the beggining imo. Believe me I hear about girfec all the time and the new scheme causes nothing but division.as ive said above at its inception its a noble idea but once you look at the manner they propose with phrases like once the np has facts from all agencys they will sit the parents down and give proposals on what way they will move forward.......sorry that to me is overstepping parental boundries.because you view this as good doesnt mean all do. Every system has flaws and for me this one has many and also the ability for abuse of power

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sorry am confused about your point as...

Per nominated person you fail to meet the min parenting standard someone will sit down and tell you what needs to happen. Post nominated person, samething happens.

Pre nominates person you meet the min parenting standard then no one interferes. Post nominated person, samething happens.

the above is the short abrupt version of what actually happens.

So am not show who nominated person or not im relates to your statement about overstepping the mark?

Again, this removes none of your responsibilities as a parent nor your rights. It's removes none of the safeguards, complaints, appeals or challenges to decisions.

All professionals have governing bodies and fitness to practice standards etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge


"Sorry am confused about your point as...

Per nominated person you fail to meet the min parenting standard someone will sit down and tell you what needs to happen. Post nominated person, samething happens.

Pre nominates person you meet the min parenting standard then no one interferes. Post nominated person, samething happens.

the above is the short abrupt version of what actually happens.

So am not show who nominated person or not im relates to your statement about overstepping the mark?

Again, this removes none of your responsibilities as a parent nor your rights. It's removes none of the safeguards, complaints, appeals or challenges to decisions.

All professionals have governing bodies and fitness to practice standards etc. "
sorry but with the new system a np can take action as ive said at points its almost guardianship powers this is what I dont agree with. The line parents and a np will sit down and move forward with whats best for the child. sorry I dont think an np has any right or need to meddle in family matters and im sure a fair proportion dont agree with this being placed on them. I believe this proposal has the possibility to cause even more harm than what there is at present. You believe this is a good move along with many others......but myself and many others believe its wrong. But who cares about the populaces thoughts as has been seen on this limited thread not too many of the scottish forum users like the np proposal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well to be honest following that line of logic there is no need for social work to meddle in family matters either. Taken to the extreme just drop child protection altogether and leave it has a private matter for the family to deal with. As clearly parents are never wrong and always know best.

The threshold level hasn't change for intervention by the way. So my logical extention to your point is valid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ola cubesMan
over a year ago

coatbridge

Social work intervene in family matters when there is a proven problem. With an np it only requires that person to see something as wrong to start interference. Sorry one persons right is anothers wrong. I will never agree with an outside agency having powers over what I see as family matters. As im sure you are aware alot of the law institution believe this is in direct breach of human rights. And have shown many examples of how a govt or state with too much say in a childs life ends up with the opposite effect of what was intended. To all intense purposes the triangle matrix magic wand is the nanny state saying if a child falls outside these parameters intervene. We are individuals not automatons I want my kids individuality I dont want them sticking between a state decided norm. Sorry but for me its pushed to far and is intrusive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top