0 0

Clare Chalmers
about 7 years ago

Of course Named Person scheme should be scrapped, should never have been started in the first place. Snook in acting at illegal levels for over a decade with no consultation with parents. Just attach practitioners to families without their knowledge or consent. What kind of a service is that? It is not about child protection, it never was, it is social engineering and it is unacceptable and unworkable. We need a public inquiry to establish who has supported this and what their real agendas have been.

Report comment

0 0

Morag Brown
about 7 years ago

Nazism and should be scrapped. The SNP let down children they knew about!!!!! Enough said!

Report comment

0 0

tam
about 7 years ago

Scrap it now!

Report comment

0 0

Brigitte Vallance
about 7 years ago

This is a waste of time and money both of which should be spent with vulnerable families. Teachers and head teacher have enough to do without this intrusive, unwarranted and unwanted nonsense thst just needs scrapped ASAP. It’s being used in the Highlands and was introduced by stealth even though illegal is still in force which is outrageous.

Report comment

0 0

phill markey
about 7 years ago

parental rights are sacred.

Report comment

0 0

Joke Donaldson-Moerland
about 7 years ago

Unlawful interfering with family life!!????????

Report comment

0 0

Robert Fletcher
about 7 years ago

Some quotes regarding the scheme: "It's become toxic" "Teachers will need a lawyer on speed-dial" "Not for my child or grand child" And those aren't from the pages of No2NP, they are from the submissions to the Education and Skills Committee of professional bodies representing the legal profession and social work! Yes- it should be scrapped!

Report comment

0 0

Catherine
about 7 years ago

Yes it should be scrapped, along with the vague and all-encompassing but ultimately entirely meaningless SHANARRI.

Report comment

0 0

Ian
about 7 years ago

I will happily leave Scotland if this 'pedophiles speed dial' comes into force. As a former Police Civilian, I saw the danger straight away - there is enough abuse of the police national database and other files to turn you off trusting the police forever - and my family is filled with former and serving police officers / civilians.This database and family file? It is literally a "who to abuse next" file just waiting for the predators - and we see Rotherham and Glasgow abuse rings galore and what did the social workers do? Turn a blind eye because of diversity.Strip these people of all powers and office, scrap the scheme and leave families alone unless there is a clear and present danger that isn't just they don't like their bedroom paint colour' (Yes, go check - that is a flag to prompt intrusion into your families personal lives and home.)

Report comment

0 0

Joy Knight
about 7 years ago

There are already enough procedures and laws in place to protect our children. Add in common-sense and any well-trained official can resolve most problems.

Report comment

0 0

Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
about 7 years ago

Formalising informal relationships, no matter how caring the reason given sounds, is not on, having a state intermediary between parent and child is downright creepy.

Report comment

0 0

Margaret McRobie
about 7 years ago

This should never have got off the ground. It’s a total waste of time and money. Use the money to help the children who need looking after not the ones who have decent parents doing a good job

Report comment

0 0

Neil
about 7 years ago

Whilst child protection should be at the forefront of social care and the sharing of useful information between agencies is a good thing, the collection of random information and the use of passing comments to make decisions is dangerous.

Report comment

0 0

joe joe
about 7 years ago

the snp should scrapped ,no place right wing racists in scotland

Report comment

0 0

Graeme Hunter
about 7 years ago

We have highly Social Workers to do this job. If they were funded to their job with the money spent on legal fees alone it would take the pressure off them and produce better results for children at riskIt is an absolute intrusion in family life.

Report comment

0 0

Brenda O’Brien
about 7 years ago

Nobody wants this disgraceful piece of legislation - to parents, not teachers, not social workers. Expert advice has been sought and rejected by the arrogant John Swinney who does NOT LISTEN. Ridiculous amount of taxpayers money spent defending this. Needs to be scrapped!

Report comment

0 0

gail gilfillan
about 7 years ago

This is another ill thought out scheme which will in fact be an expensive and incompetent piece of legislation that will not find the real children at risk as so much energy will be used legislating parents to raise children the governments way, with no freedom of approach, engendering fear amongst those who have no reason to fear it and giving too big a work load to the social services and teachers who will inevitably concentrate on the kids and families who are easiest to deal with. The real at risk kids will continue to stay hidden as their abusers and poor parenters will be clapping their hands as the load and money will be spread so thin that nothing effective will come of it!!! It totally does my head in that there is not an ounce of sheer common sense in this government, just an over riding ambition to never listen and use everything for their own ends. Let alone all the illegal acts that have occurred and continue to Oh and 1 head with up to 2000 children has to be named person over the heads of the parents, poor guys and just another crazy crazy idea

Report comment

0 0

Anne Wilson
about 7 years ago

I object strongly to the total inaccuracies in your article aboveFirst of all the first paragraph talks about "plans for a guardian to be appointed for every child in Scotland" Since when did the definition of guardian which is a legal term https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guardian - a person who has the legal right and responsibility of taking care of someone who cannot take care of himself or herself, such as a child whose parents have died: The child's parents or guardians must give their consent before she has the operation.ever equate to the description of the Named Person which by the way is not a person but more correctly the Named Person Service and if you bothered to look at the description of the Named Person, you would find their responsibilities very far from those of a guardian.Secondly, paragraph 2 talks about ....."including a Supreme Court ruling against the scheme last summer." Wrong!The Supreme court actually praised the scheme by saying it was very worth-while but there was one part, the information sharing sections which were incompatible with Article 8 in the ECHR i.e. the right to family life and privacy.I know the media are seldom renowned for their accuracy, but where is you journalistic integrity? You are misleading the public and stirring up far more trouble than there needs to be over this matter with false information.Read more at http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/polls/poll-should-named-person-legislation-be-scrapped#3RLC0C3XUFUrhpD1.99 Read more at http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/polls/poll-should-named-person-legislation-be-scrapped#3RLC0C3XUFUrhpD1.99

Report comment

0 0

Janet Pamment
about 7 years ago

Don't like the state interference and data sharing

Report comment

0 0

John Cunningham
about 7 years ago

Whilst it does have a legitimate aim it is a wholly disproportionate means of achieving it. It is a gross breach of the right to privacy and on a balanced consideration it should be scrapped and more appropriate means adopted. Frankly I find it appalling that any government could have thought this to be an acceptable move - that is the really worryinģ aspect of the matter.

Report comment

0 0

William
about 7 years ago

@Anne WilsonThe Supreme Court didnt praise it, maybe you should read the judgement again .Do you support the govt in indiscriminately breaching the human rights and privacy of every family in Scotland ?

Report comment

0 0

Philip
about 7 years ago

This article has so many inaccuracies! Ann Wilson below - I agree with everything you have said. Mr Martin needs to get his facts right it appears.

Report comment