invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 IA, you seem to be extremely well informed on these matters and provide a good insight for those of us not completely understanding of the machinations of child protection/ assistance issues. For that, thanks. If you don't mind me asking (in a non-stalkerish way), what is your job/link to this legislation? I work for a Council in a team whose current main task is GIRFEC and named person implementation across all children's services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Is it untrue to say that every child will have a Named Person? My understanding is that that's exactly what every child gets in a bid to get it right for each of them. As you say though, only a small proportion will need access to the services that person can activate. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. You're absolutely right in saying that this actually changes little. The idea of individuals having explicit responsibility in this regard is to be welcomed though.You are correct, it's a wee bit of semantics.The guidance has changed slightly. It now talks about having access to a named person service rather than every child will have a named person. It's about heading off at the pass accusations of state appointed guardians for all children. However,the reality is unchanged any child that needs a named person will have access to one and that named person will be pre-determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I work for a Council in a team whose current main task is GIRFEC and named person implementation across all children's services. Thanks. I hope the implementation goes well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 You are correct, it's a wee bit of semantics. The guidance has changed slightly. It now talks about having access to a named person service rather than every child will have a named person. It's about heading off at the pass accusations of state appointed guardians for all children. However,the reality is unchanged any child that needs a named person will have access to one and that named person will be pre-determined. Smells like goverment interference on how we look after our kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Smells like goverment interference on how we look after our kids. With idiots like you around there needs to be kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Smells like goverment interference on how we look after our kids. Shut the f**k up Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Shut the f**k up Kev. Thats not a very nice attitude to have towards someone who as a parent has a right to express his views on this subject,and seeing as you state above you are part of a council team that is looking to implement this policy your attitude concerns me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 With idiots like you around there needs to be kev It would be rather silly to judge what comments i make on here as to how good my parenting skills are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Thats not a very nice attitude to have towards someone who as a parent has a right to express his views on this subject,and seeing as you state above you are part of a council team that is looking to implement this policy your attitude concerns me as well. You do have a right to express your view, whether you're a parent or not. However, people who work directly in this field will wish to treat your view as one which displays sufficient ignorance for it to be dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Thats not a very nice attitude to have towards someone who as a parent has a right to express his views on this subject,and seeing as you state above you are part of a council team that is looking to implement this policy your attitude concerns me as well. I'm sorry Kev you are absolutely correct. If you can tell me specifically what it is about NP or GIRFEC that has changed from the previous system,or indeed any aspect of the new Children's Act that concerns you and I will do my best to answer those concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I'm sorry Kev you are absolutely correct. If you can tell me specifically what it is about NP or GIRFEC that has changed from the previous system,or indeed any aspect of the new Children's Act that concerns you and I will do my best to answer those concerns. You have no obligation to answer this on a public forum, however, if Kev approaches you in your professional capacity- please answer his concerns. As it is- he appears to be a 12 year old schoolboy, so no worries about him being a parent of 2. Even given Dundee's teen parent rate- at 12, he doesn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 You have no obligation to answer this on a public forum, however, if Kev approaches you in your professional capacity- please answer his concerns. As it is- he appears to be a 12 year old schoolboy, so no worries about him being a parent of 2. Even given Dundee's teen parent rate- at 12, he doesn't qualify. I wouldn't worry. If it isn't contained in the big black bold letters at the top of a story Kev won't know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 IA, as someone with much more knowledge of the subject than most, how do you feel about Ruth Davidson's assertion that the Named Person scheme may increase the chances of cases of severe child neglect like Baby P or Victoria Climbie, due to work overload of the responsible people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 IA, as someone with much more knowledge of the subject than most, how do you feel about Ruth Davidson's assertion that the Named Person scheme may increase the chances of cases of severe child neglect like Baby P or Victoria Climbie, due to work overload of the responsible people? I'm pretty furious about it if I'm honest. I think it's an unbelievable statement in its irresponsibility, sheer wrongheadedness and using dead kids names to score cheap political points. NP is not about creating work, it is about coordinating existing work. If you want to talk about under resourcing children's services and the pressure social services are under then that's fine. This uneducated ill informed shite from someone who should no better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I'm pretty furious about it if I'm honest. I think it's an unbelievable statement in its irresponsibility, sheer wrongheadedness and using dead kids names to score cheap political points. NP is not about creating work, it is about coordinating existing work. If you want to talk about under resourcing children's services and the pressure social services are under then that's fine. This uneducated ill informed shite from someone who should no better. Serious question for you,will the np scheme be better than whats in place just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Serious question for you,will the np scheme be better than whats in place just now. I'm 100% of the view it will be better. I can't say it won't be without teething problems. Health visiting especially seem to be struggling to get themselves ready for this but once established I'm convinced it will be better. Not just for child safety and protection but as a system that any parent can approach to ask for additional support for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I'm 100% of the view it will be better. I can't say it won't be without teething problems. Health visiting especially seem to be struggling to get themselves ready for this but once established I'm convinced it will be better. Not just for child safety and protection but as a system that any parent can approach to ask for additional support for any reason. Cheers for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I also have grave concerns over things I know nothing about. Can someone tell me whether they're good or bad please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I also have grave concerns over things I know nothing about. Can someone tell me whether they're good or bad please? Well, it depends. Some aspects of these things you know nothing about are good, however there's an argument to be had that some are bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I also have grave concerns over things I know nothing about. Can someone tell me whether they're good or bad please? ^^^ Jackie Baillie's speechwriter IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.