The Named Person Scheme

[Thumper]

So if one examines the tweet in question in strict isolation from an entire election campaign, one key point of which was the person in question explicitly vowing to block the legislation in question because of alleged negatives related to such, then this is simply a perfectly innocent comment regarding the inapplicability of the legislation in this case. Glad that's settled.

[yoda]

Not even Ruth Davidson is saying that the fact Fife had a NPS and that Liam died despite its existence is an argument against having a NPS.

 

No, she isn't. Other people are, although it's more an implied "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" than open political point scoring over a dead bairn.

 

Mine was a general post as opposed to focusing on Davidson's tweet.

[Ad Lib]

So if one examines the tweet in question in strict isolation from an entire election campaign, one key point of which was the person in question explicitly vowing to block the legislation in question because of alleged negatives related to such, then this is simply a perfectly innocent comment regarding the inapplicability of the legislation in this case. Glad that's settled.

It's perfectly consistent for someone to be against a piece of legislation on the grounds both that it is inefficacious and, separately, that it is actively harmful.

For example, if the Scottish Government were to say:

"The Scottish Cup final proves we need the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act"

And I say:

"You could have prosecuted everyone you prosecuted under that Act following that game through pieces of legislation that preceded that Act and could have imposed the same punishments on them"

Then I am not saying:

"The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act caused or materially contributed to the events at Hampden."

But equally that does not invalidate or mean I am not, separately, entitled to say:

"The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act has been counterproductive in trying to tackle sectarian attitudes and singing in Scottish football because it has created a victim complex among fans and made martyrs of the tiny proportion of people actually arrested under the legislation."

[DA Baracus]

Ad Lib, I'm your named person and your file is disappointing, especially your photograph collection. On the plus side I do now have a detailed itinerary of your movements

[MarkoRaj]

Did he have a named person or not?

[invergowrie arab]

It's all irrelevant until the findings of serious case review are known.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Councils (sic) didn't do information sharing or joined up work well.

That's why central govt has had to step in to legislate to make it happen.

 

Central government aren't "running it" they have legislated to say there needs to be a single child's planning process but it is up to community planning partnerships to decide how they want to implement the scheme.

The Government have worked alongside test sites over the past 2-3 years to test the scheme and produce guidance, for example who the NP should be, but it is up to individual areas to implement their own scheme. They will run it and it will evolve locally.

I have sympathy with the idea of devolving as much authority as possible down to local bodies.

 

 

Would it make more sense for Central Government to play a more proactive role given that Children can be and are moved from authority to authority? 

[invergowrie arab]

I don't think out of authority placements are really relevant to how the NP is implemented but I would agree that the Scottish Government should issue regulations and nation wide literature with specific detailed instructions as to how it should be implemented.

Since seeing what some other test sites have come up I'm actually a bit more sympathetic to where people with concerns are coming from. One of the Lanarkshires in particular is horrifying in how draconian the literature sounds and they have completely over stepped the mark in what the NP has to do in the pre birth phase.

[Ira Gaines]

Ad Lib sticking up for a Tory again? I'm shocked at this revelation. It's almost as if he's a Tory himself.

[lichtgilphead]

None of what you have said suggests that there is any evidence that the existence of a Named Persons Scheme would prevent children in the same situation as Liam Fee from being killed.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good argument for having NPS. It just means Liam's death isn't such an argument.

The fact that Fife Council has said the rollout was incremental does not mean that Liam did not have a named person. I would be surprised if Ruth Davidson would say something so unequivocal if she did not know it to be true.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36433433

 

"Fife Council has indicated that Liam Fee did not have a named person in terms of the legislation that parliament has put in place"

[Ad Lib]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36433433

 

"Fife Council has indicated that Liam Fee did not have a named person in terms of the legislation that parliament has put in place"

Thanks for that.

The operative words in that sentence are of course "in terms of the legislation that parliament has put in place".

The statement does not maintain that he did not have a named person under Fife Council's Named Person Scheme.

There can be legitimate arguments about whether the additional measures present in the national scheme would have been more efficacious than those that existed in Fife Council at the time, but the statement does not say he did not have a named person.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

"Unequivocal" Tory statement in actually quite equivocal after all shock

[Ad Lib]

"Unequivocal" Tory statement in actually quite equivocal after all shock

Her language wasn't ambiguous or open to interpretation. Either he had a named person or he didn't. The Scottish Government statement doesn't say that he didn't, just that he didn't have a named person "in terms of the legislation that parliament has put in place".

It's that statement, not Ruth Davidson's, that's equivocal. It may be more accurate, we don't know because they haven't clarified further, but Ruth Davidson's statement is unequivocal.

It's quite funny, actually, as "in terms of" is a phrase that the SNP have used before to give a misleading impression about the truth. Specifically Alex Salmond, when he said on being asked if he'd sought advice from his Scottish law officers with reference to Scotland's place in the EU.

"We have, yes, in terms of the debate".

Which we all now know of course means "No we haven't."

[lichtgilphead]

And here we go again.

 

Another borefest of semantics & twisted definitions, with the bonus of an additional frantic attempt to divert away from the subject under discussion.

 

You're getting boring & predictable, Libby.

[Ad Lib]

And here we go again.

 

Another borefest of semantics & twisted definitions, with the bonus of an additional frantic attempt to divert away from the subject under discussion.

 

You're getting boring & predictable, Libby.

Nicest thing you've ever said to me lichtie. Let's elope.

[lichtgilphead]

What a fantastic offer! You would have to promise it wouldn't always be all about you though.

[Ad Lib]

What a fantastic offer! You would have to promise it wouldn't always be all about you though.

Stop talking about me then.

[invergowrie arab]

The correct thing to do here is:

1. Say no comment on individual circumstances until serious case review complete.

2.(my preference, morally and in the age of FOISA) full disclosure on what NP means in this context, how many agencies were involved, the information protocols in place, at which level the single child's planning process was at and the agency with the lead professional role - or whichever of these was not in place.

To say "yeah he had one but not like you would understand, in another way" are weasel words and looks pathetic. I fully expect it of council PR ddepartments but disappointed to see the DFM parrot it.

[Ad Lib]

Invergowrie, stop being so painfully reasonable.

[invergowrie arab]

Sorry.

Typical Britnats and yoon media engaging in #snpbad