BuddieinEK Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 How's the heid this morning Buddie [emoji1787]Absolutely fine thanks.Ask me again at 4.45pm! [emoji12] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 Would you like a drink sneaked over disguised as coffee.[emoji6] [emoji1634]Very decent of you... I'm going to try watching Saints without a drink! I know!I reckon that like Gazza, they probably play better with a drink in them! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji12] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Very decent of you... I'm going to try watching Saints without a drink! I know! I reckon that like Gazza, they probably play better with a drink in them! I'll drink to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 12 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Then why has there not been a public outcry or a push from the SNP to save the legislation? They KNOW it is not manageable or widely supported! People involved in child protection have said as much! Better cutting losses and saving damage to the system through something well intended but not thought out! Example? Opposite end of the scale... Dementia. Scottish Government legislated that every person diagnosed with dementia was entitled to a full years post diagnostic support from a named nurse. Well meaning and idealistic. Also harmful! Our local CPNs gave 6 monthly visits to people with dementia and their carers. Great system. Working well. New legislation passed. No additional funding. No additional hours. Community Health Team pulled all six monthly visits to concentrate on the post diagnostic support. Surprise.... Much of it is rejected as people are not ready for intensive support at that stage. Meantime... People in dire need of support are left wanting as Government targets have to be met! Childcare has been spared this yet you see it as an attack on the infallible masters! Shame on you. It's good to hear about the reality of legislation such as this one. It appears that once again politicians can't be trusted to properly consult and thoroughly think through the consequences of legislation in Scotland. The less politicians do, the better IMO. Why they felt that this legislation would have protected children is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: PPS.. "rant and a half"? Too feckin right. I deal daily with people suffering from well meaning but seriously misguided legislation. I will never be silenced when advocating for people over politics or funding. Never. He is right of course that no other party initially opposed the "named person" legislation , it was campaigners that took it to the courts and then when the Supreme court said it breached Human Rights then Swinney did another climb down . SNPbad? I think they have simply lost their way and should get back to core values of the Party but that would possibly mean getting rid of the power hungry St*rge*n . . Edited September 21, 2019 by saintnextlifetime Edited by Tom for language and ad hominen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 On 9/20/2019 at 1:42 PM, antrin said: Perched on a pikestaff, by any chance? I'd rather let them slink away, no doubt they'll have plenty stashed away for such an eventuality - but I wouldn't shed any tears for them if it went the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 43 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: I'd rather let them slink away, no doubt they'll have plenty stashed away for such an eventuality - but I wouldn't shed any tears for them if it went the other way. Ahh , what happened to the bleeding heart liberal. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said: Ahh , what happened to the bleeding heart liberal. . Yup I felt sympathy for Shemima Begum (still do) who's been brainwashed and suffered tremendously in her short life to date, she's more of a victim than a threat to UK security and I still reckon demonizing her will just make the situation worse, radicalizing another generation of young Muslims - I still think if you say your better than ISIS then it's up to you to behave better than ISIS i.e. show some forgiveness. Government policy, supported by the MSM & their on this issue is a mistake morally & practically. As for the Royal Family, I'm just an old fashioned class warrior at heart and I guess that trumps my bleeding heart liberalism. Just to make it clear - I'd like to see a Scottish Republic within the EU and I'd far rather have Shemima Begum as a neighbour than any of our Royal Family.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Saint Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 Yup I felt sympathy for Shemima Begum (still do) who's been brainwashed and suffered tremendously in her short life to date, she's more of a victim than a threat to UK security and I still reckon demonizing her will just make the situation worse, radicalizing another generation of young Muslims - I still think if you say your better than ISIS then it's up to you to behave better than ISIS i.e. show some forgiveness. Government policy, supported by the MSM & their on this issue is a mistake morally & practically. As for the Royal Family, I'm just an old fashioned class warrior at heart and I guess that trumps my bleeding heart liberalism. Just to make it clear - I'd like to see a Scottish Republic within the EU and I'd far rather have Shemima Begum as a neighbour than any of our Royal Family.. Feck me. At 15 I thought getting the bus from Foxbar to Smith-hill Street was a big adventure, walking to Elderslie baths during the summer holidays was a major expedition. “Boys, what you want to do on Wednesday, a trip to the Magnum Centre, or a trip to a war zone thousands of miles away?”The likes of the BBC, ITV, Sky were full of stories regarding ISIS so I don’t believe all that pish about how they didn’t know what they were getting themselves into. If she was ever allowed back then she should spend her time in prison. Personally, she can stay where she is.As for the Royals, I don’t believe we need them but I’d rather be having a natter wae Harry and Meghan over the garden fence than any terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 2 hours ago, cockles1987 said: You do know that Barnardo's, Children First and other children's charity organisation were in favour of it for that very reason. How many of those would have had to actually carry out the legislation? Those are the people whose opinions mattered most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 How many of those would have had to actually carry out the legislation? Those are the people whose opinions mattered most.Yup.FWIW... Alzheimer's Scotland supported the dementia legislation!From consultation stage I spoke against it.However... They are a national charity, I only have 30 years experience in dementia care at a hands on level!No competition!Parallels are scary.This is a lucky escape for childcare... Regardless of what national charities supported it.Massive difference between Idealistic well meaning intervention and unworkable interference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delpierro Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Then why has there not been a public outcry or a push from the SNP to save the legislation?They KNOW it is not manageable or widely supported!People involved in child protection have said as much!Better cutting losses and saving damage to the system through something well intended but not thought out!Example?Opposite end of the scale... Dementia.Scottish Government legislated that every person diagnosed with dementia was entitled to a full years post diagnostic support from a named nurse.Well meaning and idealistic.Also harmful!Our local CPNs gave 6 monthly visits to people with dementia and their carers.Great system. Working well.New legislation passed.No additional funding.No additional hours.Community Health Team pulled all six monthly visits to concentrate on the post diagnostic support.Surprise.... Much of it is rejected as people are not ready for intensive support at that stage.Meantime... People in dire need of support are left wanting as Government targets have to be met!Childcare has been spared this yet you see it as an attack on the infallible masters!Shame on you. No they f**king didn't!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 No they f**king didn't!!!!Passionate response.Obviously I hit a nerve.The ones I heard speak out certainly did.How you can say that "they didn't" implying unity, I just don't know. Why not state your case?Happy to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 It's good to hear about the reality of legislation such as this one. It appears that once again politicians can't be trusted to properly consult and thoroughly think through the consequences of legislation in Scotland. The less politicians do, the better IMO. Why they felt that this legislation would have protected children is beyond me.Possibly because there are versions of it currently protecting children across Scotland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Yup.FWIW... Alzheimer's Scotland supported the dementia legislation!From consultation stage I spoke against it.However... They are a national charity, I only have 30 years experience in dementia care at a hands on level!No competition!Parallels are scary.This is a lucky escape for childcare... Regardless of what national charities supported it.Massive difference between Idealistic well meaning intervention and unworkable interference! Is it unworkable interference in Highlands where its been operating for a while? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Is it unworkable interference in Highlands where its been operating for a while? If individual local authorities can make it work then fantastic. I would fully support that.That is very different from national legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 If individual local authorities can make it work then fantastic. I would fully support that.That is very different from national legislation.I thought the intention of the legislation was to give consistency to what is being done, in different ways, by some local authorities?So you are okay in theory with all 32 local authorities doing this, just not collectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 I thought the intention of the legislation was to give consistency to what is being done, in different ways, by some local authorities?So you are okay in theory with all 32 local authorities doing this, just not collectively. Yes... Because the 32 different areas have very different needs.How they choose to ensure the welfare of children should be up to them as they will have a handle on local needs and priorities.A one size fits all approach isn't manageable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Yes... Because the 32 different areas have very different needs.How they choose to ensure the welfare of children should be up to them as they will have a handle on local needs and priorities.A one size fits all approach isn't manageable.Postcode lottery.They don't have different needs. It's children's needs and safeguarding that this is about and they are the same whether in Thurso or Dumfries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Postcode lottery.They don't have different needs. It's children's needs and safeguarding that this is about and they are the same whether in Thurso or Dumfries. Idealistic.The geographical differences between Shetland and Shettleston mean how children can be safeguarded has to be according to local needs... Different hazards. Different local services available.Protection should be the priority.. it is a basic right.Trying to standardise something so diverse would hamper protection services and see people missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 You do realise that for some of our brethern on BAWA , it is considered by them to be sacriligeous , to critisize policies or ministers of the incumbent political party in ScotlandThis is something both you and BinEK have insinuated about me on this subject. Can you show me where I have defended the SNP on this? I have simply defended the principle of legislating to protect children and expressed annoyance at the political game playing that has saw parliament fail to get a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 Idealistic.The geographical differences between Shetland and Shettleston mean how children can be safeguarded has to be according to local needs... Different hazards. Different local services available.Protection should be the priority.. it is a basic right.Trying to standardise something so diverse would hamper protection services and see people missed.With respect this is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 With respect this is nonsense.With respect that's not respectful! [emoji14] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 22 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: 55 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Idealistic. The geographical differences between Shetland and Shettleston mean how children can be safeguarded has to be according to local needs... Different hazards. Different local services available. Protection should be the priority.. it is a basic right. Trying to standardise something so diverse would hamper protection services and see people missed. With respect this is nonsense. What would be more helpful would be a detailed reason why localisation is inferior to centralisation in this specific case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: This is something both you and BinEK have insinuated about me on this subject. Can you show me where I have defended the SNP on this? I have simply defended the principle of legislating to protect children and expressed annoyance at the political game playing that has saw parliament fail to get a solution. So part of the problem occurs when you use phrases like the one highlighted. By grabbing the moral high ground like this you insinuate that everyone who is against this legislation is somehow not interested in protecting children. Not only is this obviously untrue but it is an intellectually bankrupt way to argue a point. You are additionally arguing that people who oppose the legislation are only interested in politics without providing any proof for this. Doing this means YOU are using politics. But apparently that is OK because only you and your side cares about children. I have no idea when this type of ridiculous argument became popular but it is everywhere and most people disengage immediately when they see it. Edited September 22, 2019 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.