Brexit vs (another) referendum

[insaintee]

Just now, Drew said:

It should be remembered that it isn't just about child protection. It is also about health and welfare.

A NP can be approached, for example, to assist a parent in accessing speech and language therapy services,or advice about child care options.

Funnily enough, we don't hear about that so much.

You're quite right Drew. If I didn't know better I'd think the whole protest against the act was simply a cynical political ploy, that actually helps protect abusers.

[Drew]

34 minutes ago, insaintee said:

You're quite right Drew. If I didn't know better I'd think the whole protest against the act was simply a cynical political ploy, that actually helps protect abusers.

My biggest criticism of the scheme was the government's failure to adequately explain what it is and how it would be implemented.

I heard a health visitor from one of the pilot areas discussing how it worked on the radio a while back, and she succeeded where the govt failed in terms of helpfully articulating what it was all about and how it worked (generally very well in her opinion).

I don't think it is insignificant that those most supportive of the initiative are people and organisations who work in the areas of child welfare, health, and education. That includes organisations in the pilot areas that have direct experience of the scheme in practice (something I can't imagine that could be said of many of it's critics).

[antrin]

50 minutes ago, Drew said:

My biggest criticism of the scheme was the government's failure to adequately explain what it is and how it would be implemented.

I heard a health visitor from one of the pilot areas discussing how it worked on the radio a while back, and she succeeded where the govt failed in terms of helpfully articulating what it was all about and how it worked (generally very well in her opinion).

I don't think it is insignificant that those most supportive of the initiative are people and organisations who work in the areas of child welfare, health, and education. That includes organisations in the pilot areas that have direct experience of the scheme in practice (something I can't imagine that could be said of many of it's critics).

My complete ignorance of what this NP scheme might be, doesn't stop me learning from this thread, specifically your post, Drew...

the suggestion that people employed in a field are supportive of an increase of funding to their area of expertise is, for me, usually a reason to be sceptical.  Very.

after all, i wouldn't be convinced of the worth of devil-worship by a coterie of Satanists.  Similarly, it seems to be that it is parents on this thread that are being sceptical about it...and they have just as a valid opinion on it as the 'vested interests' do. (Your double negative to start your final paragraph above suggested you were also ambivalent.)

i mentioned Satanists above, due to the appalling and unfounded accusations vilifying perfectly decent parents that rattled around Scotland a couple of decades ago.  Unfounded and catastrophic (for the implicated parents and children concerned) accusations - it eventually turned out - but by then the damage had been done.  Obviously, this NP initiative reminds me of that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal

the idea of families being allowed to 'parent' their kids has worked fine for millennia.  I have little optimism that a governmental agency's involvement will improve things.  

 

Eta not just Scotland.

other than Orkney -  Broxstowe, Kidwelly, Clevland, Rochdale.

also Lewis.

All unfounded zeal from Social Workers.

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by antrin

[Drew]

11 minutes ago, antrin said:

My complete ignorance of what this NP scheme might be, doesn't stop me learning from this thread, specifically your post, Drew...

the suggestion that people employed in a field are supportive of an increase of funding to their area of expertise is, for me, usually a reason to be sceptical.  Very.

after all, i wouldn't be convinced of the worth of devil-worship by a coterie of Satanists.  Similarly, it seems to be that it is parents on this thread that are being sceptical about it...and they have just as a valid opinion on it as the 'vested interests' do. (Your double negative to start your final paragraph above suggested you were also ambivalent.)

i mentioned Satanists above, due to the appalling and unfounded accusations vilifying perfectly decent parents that rattled around Scotland a couple of decades ago.  Unfounded and catastrophic (for the implicated parents and children concerned) accusations - it eventually turned out - but by then the damage had been done.  Obviously, this NP initiative reminds me of that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal

the idea of families being allowed to 'parent' their kids has worked fine for millennia.  I have little optimism that a governmental agency's involvement will improve things.  

 

 

It so happens that I am both a parent and someone with a 'vested interest' in this area of work/service delivery. As such, I would hope that I have a generally balanced approach to how I view the scheme.

It is certainly interesting that you refer to the Orkney scenario. That took place a quarter of a century ago, and prompted huge reform to child protection methods. The report, and others that have followed in respect of various incidents and tragedies, consistently highlight the requirement for effective communication and robust systems of accountability. My understanding is that both happen to be cornerstones of the NP scheme.

The introduction of radically different approaches to child protection have served to diminish the likelihood of further Orkney type situations arising.

Again, however, we have the emphasis on child protection, with perceived intrusion into family life, and the general erosion of parental authority, etc, etc. Even a cursory understanding of the NP scheme should serve to indicate that such emphasis is at best ill-informed, and, more worryingly, sensationalist and corrosive in nature.

The scheme was most certainly imperfect, but the hysterical and largely ill-informed hand-wringing and outrage it seemed to provoke is actually quite damaging.

[Lord Pityme]

Cannae wait for the tv clip where Theresa May has to stand up and say 'Scoxit, means Scoxit'..!

[insaintee]

I don't have a vested interest but am a parent. I did however have a very minor role in drafting a response to the legislation and have actually read it. 

I think that those that have read and or worked with the legislation probably have a more valid opinion of the legislation than those who's knowledge of it is limited to scaremongering reports from the tory press

[Guest TPAFKATS]

My complete ignorance of what this NP scheme might be, doesn't stop me learning from this thread, specifically your post, Drew...
the suggestion that people employed in a field are supportive of an increase of funding to their area of expertise is, for me, usually a reason to be sceptical.  Very.
after all, i wouldn't be convinced of the worth of devil-worship by a coterie of Satanists.  Similarly, it seems to be that it is parents on this thread that are being sceptical about it...and they have just as a valid opinion on it as the 'vested interests' do. (Your double negative to start your final paragraph above suggested you were also ambivalent.)
i mentioned Satanists above, due to the appalling and unfounded accusations vilifying perfectly decent parents that rattled around Scotland a couple of decades ago.  Unfounded and catastrophic (for the implicated parents and children concerned) accusations - it eventually turned out - but by then the damage had been done.  Obviously, this NP initiative reminds me of that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal
the idea of families being allowed to 'parent' their kids has worked fine for millennia.  I have little optimism that a governmental agency's involvement will improve things.  
 
Eta not just Scotland.
other than Orkney -  Broxstowe, Kidwelly, Clevland, Rochdale.
also Lewis.
All unfounded zeal from Social Workers.
 
 
 

Your complete ignorance on the subject is shining brightly. Well done

I was sceptical of the NP legislation when it was first proposed. Then I read up on it.

For me the most striking 'evidence' is to look at all the groups in favour (all major children's welfare groups and charities, health organisations, police etc) - otherwise known as 'the experts'

Against - some christain group who are frankly bonkers and some opposition parties at Holyrood who didn't oppose it when it first went through Holyrood process, but have grabbed onto some opportunism to gain news space. Oh and Oaksoft and antrin.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I never read it as criticism.

I just happen to have read up on some stuff, rather than believe what some of the press write.

If I remember correctly the proposal is for about a third of the treatments getting moved.
Can't recollect if they named what those are.

I don't recall what procedures are moving, however I think the out patients Dept is staying? If so, local kids will continue to attend rah.
In patient and theatre procedures will go to the new kids hospital which is about 6 miles away. It's a regional centre which sounds a much better way for a child to receive in patient treatment along with operations etc.
My daughter received emergency care at rah as a toddler - that wouldn't change with these plans. Kids would still go through the Emergency Dept route and if needed would be transferred to the kids hospital for inpatient care.

As I said though it's an emotive subject which isn't helped by press and politicians sensationalising for their own ends.

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, insaintee said:

You're quite right Drew. If I didn't know better I'd think the whole protest against the act was simply a cynical political ploy, that actually helps protect abusers.

Stop being ridiculous.

People have genuine concerns about this legislation and attempting to tar them in this way is pathetic.

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, Drew said:

It should be remembered that it isn't just about child protection. It is also about health and welfare.

A NP can be approached, for example, to assist a parent in accessing speech and language therapy services,or advice about child care options.

Funnily enough, we don't hear about that so much.

You don't need NP legislation to help parents in this way.

NP is a one size fits all bill which attempts to solve child abuse and neglect by allowing outside agencies to get involved in families where they might otherwise not have that capability.

It is well meaning but almost nobody abuses their kids Drew. The authorities know where most fo the problem families are and people fell through the net because the existing legislation wasn't being followed through.

The upshot is that rather than work out why existing legislation wasn't working and fix that, suddenly every single family is at risk of authorities abusing their power.

Do you trust these people not to abuse their power?

If so I would remind you of the witchcraft scandal 20 years ago(?).

Families were torn apart by that.

I woudl also point you to the mountain of cases of abuse of kids at the hands of authoritaty figures in the scouting organisations, the BBC, the catholic church and many others.

Only a parent should be responsible for their kids welfare until proven that the kid is being abused or neglected.

This attempt at "pre-empting" abuse is not going to save a single life and cause huge resentment from the vast army of decent parents out there who will now feel the presence of someone looking over their shoulders and judging them. We are building a culture of "stranger danger" fear where there is little or no risk and ignoring the real threats. None of that is sensible.

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

It is well meaning but almost nobody abuses their kids Drew. The authorities know where most fo the problem families are and people fell through the net because the existing legislation wasn't being followed through.

 

I've no intention of getting dragged into this debate but, REALLY?

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, insaintee said:

Probably not. 

 

On a serious note, any action taken to protect children will of necessity be intrusive. The named person act will not lead to any new intrusion into family life, the only think it will do is let the various agencies involved share their data ( which arguably they can now).  

The problem some people seem to have is the idea that a teacher will know about any social concerns or a medical practitioner now about  any child protection issues. 

The opponents of this act seem to think that child protection is less important than any potential embarrassment suffered by families that only have a little bit of trouble in their family .

Maybe you should try ASKING people what their problem is rather than leaping to false conclusions.

This is not about embarassment FFS. This is about the potential for unwarranted abuse of the system. How many more examples of authority abuse do you want me to tell you about? I listed 3 above and I forgot youth football caoches abusing kids.

Add to that this ridiculous fear people seem to have that our streets are paved with paedophiles just waiting to pounce on a stray kid and you have mass hysteria and empty streets.

NP exacerbates this fear anmd panic culture.

We are heading the wrong way down a one way street.

[oaksoft]

Just now, faraway saint said:

I've no intention of getting dragged into this debate but, REALLY?

Yeah really.

Sexual abuse and neglect of children affects a vanishingly small number of them and in most cases we already know exactly where those kids are.

We don't need NP or a culture of fear to protect our kids.

We need a bit more commonsense.

[faraway saint]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah really.

Sexual abuse and neglect of children affects a vanishingly small number of them and in most cases we already know exactly where those kids are.

We don't need NP or a culture of fear to protect our kids.

We need a bit more commonsense.

Well, as it's well known for you to make things up, could you provide some figures/proof?

I'd be interested to see what you term "a vanishingly small number".

Edited March 14, 2017 by faraway saint

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yeah really.
Sexual abuse and neglect of children affects a vanishingly small number of them and in most cases we already know exactly where those kids are.
We don't need NP or a culture of fear to protect our kids.
We need a bit more commonsense.

'We need a bit more commonsense' is one of those statements that's up there with
'we don't need experts'
Thanks Nigel [emoji106]

[mcdowell76]

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:39 AM, Drew said:

Unlike the SNP, however, I would like Scotland to be a republic.

Fundamental differences

When someone lists getting rid of the Queen as head of state as their main priority and describes it as "fundamental", you know you can ignore everything they have to say on the subject of independence!

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by mcdowell76

[Drew]

58 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You don't need NP legislation to help parents in this way.

NP is a one size fits all bill which attempts to solve child abuse and neglect by allowing outside agencies to get involved in families where they might otherwise not have that capability.

It is well meaning but almost nobody abuses their kids Drew. The authorities know where most fo the problem families are and people fell through the net because the existing legislation wasn't being followed through.

The upshot is that rather than work out why existing legislation wasn't working and fix that, suddenly every single family is at risk of authorities abusing their power.

Do you trust these people not to abuse their power?

If so I would remind you of the witchcraft scandal 20 years ago(?).

Families were torn apart by that.

I woudl also point you to the mountain of cases of abuse of kids at the hands of authoritaty figures in the scouting organisations, the BBC, the catholic church and many others.

Only a parent should be responsible for their kids welfare until proven that the kid is being abused or neglected.

This attempt at "pre-empting" abuse is not going to save a single life and cause huge resentment from the vast army of decent parents out there who will now feel the presence of someone looking over their shoulders and judging them. We are building a culture of "stranger danger" fear where there is little or no risk and ignoring the real threats. None of that is sensible.

Witchcraft again

Did you even read the post I made earlier about Orkney in response to Chingford?

In fact, did you even read the post you quoted? If so, you'll perhaps grasp the fact that the NP isn't merely about framing innocent God-fearing people for satanic ritualistic abuse.

Its also about general child health and wellbeing. If you cannot accept that, whilst falling short of being victims of human sacrifice, many children in this country are in need of additional support from time to time (and, indeed, vulnerable) then you've either led a very sheltered life or are deliberately at the fanny.

Its that old "nanny state" line being trotted out again. Sadly, I've seen the reality of the lives experienced by damaged kids more times than I care to recall, and I don't think it is simply enough to rely on parents to do the right things at all times. I think a bit of collective responsibility is entirely appropriate.

I have to confess to being a bit surprised that you're so easily taken in by the Daily Mail approach to societal analysis.

 

[Drew]

6 minutes ago, mcdowell76 said:

When someone lists getting rid of the Queen as head of state as their main priority and describes it as "fundamental", you know you can ignore everything they have to say on the subject of independence!

 

You're really terrible at this now, Andy.

It's actually quite sad. A bit like a dried up, out of date old stand-up trying to make a comeback, but dying on his arse with every tired, lame gag.

If you were intentionally going for pathos, I might congratulate you.

[antrin]

4 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

'We need a bit more commonsense' is one of those statements that's up there with
'we don't need experts'
Thanks Nigel

Your complete ignorance on the subject is shining brightly. Well done

I was sceptical of the NP legislation when it was first proposed. Then I read up on it.

For me the most striking 'evidence' is to look at all the groups in favour (all major children's welfare groups and charities, health organisations, police etc) - otherwise known as 'the experts'

Against - some christain group who are frankly bonkers and some opposition parties at Holyrood who didn't oppose it when it first went through Holyrood process, but have grabbed onto some opportunism to gain news space. Oh and Oaksoft and antrin.

We got Brexit precisely because too many people listened to experts on that subject such as Boris and Farage.

I don't claim to have  PhD  on the subject of NP... but I do know more than a fair bit about Social Work, organisation structures and Sociology.  But fair enough - diss those who would debate a subject - that seems to be the way in Scotland nowadays. 

Whilst tarring me and oaky in with the same brush as 'christain' (sic) and bonkers groups, you omitted naming two of the other posters above who were not wholly in favour of your blanket, unquestioning support of NP.

Why would that be?  Too many dissenters to acknowledge?

[FTOF]

4 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Well, as it's well known for you to make things up, could you provide some figures/proof?

I'd be interested to see what you term "a vanishingly small number".

As someone who works in a place with over 1000 kids every day (except for the inordinate amount of holidays  GIRUY), I can assure you that child abuse and neglect of kids takes many forms, and is certainly not "a vanishingly small number". I don't work in a school that has a particularly high level of deprivation. God only knows what it's like in some of the schools in those areas.

 

[stlucifer]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 5:57 PM, oaksoft said:

I am pretty sure that once independence is achieved, we'll see the SNP vote start to fall away.

Some votes (perhaps mine) will go to the Tories if I can trust them to behave and some will go to Labour, LibDem, Greens.

I am sure that we have seen the last single majority party.

I think we'll be looking at the SNP and Tories around the 45 seat mark with Labour on about 20 and the rest making up the numbers with either minority SNP government or a Tory minority government.

Can't see it changing much from that for many years.

Probably a fair reflection of where Scotland is politically.

I would go further than that. When independence is achieved the SNP, as a party will wither and fragment. The political landscape will revert to a conservative with a small "c" party lagging behind a rejuvenated Scottish labour party free from the shackles of the turmoil-filled brothers south of Hadrian's wall.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

We got Brexit precisely because too many people listened to experts on that subject such as Boris and Farage.
I don't claim to have  PhD  on the subject of NP... but I do know more than a fair bit about Social Work, organisation structures and Sociology.  But fair enough - diss those who would debate a subject - that seems to be the way in Scotland nowadays. 
Whilst tarring me and oaky in with the same brush as 'christain' (sic) and bonkers groups, you omitted naming two of the other posters above who were not wholly in favour of your blanket, unquestioning support of NP.
Why would that be?  Too many dissenters to acknowledge?

Of course I didn't say I had blanket, unquestioning support for it. I'd expect you to know this but then again you think Farage and Boris are experts on EU.

Feel free to add any others posters to your merry band. Apologies to anyone I missed.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

TPAFKATS, i believe there was some irony meant, regarding the two supposedly euro experts from antrin.

Well, I initially thought that but on re reading his post and acknowledging that the leave campaign mocked listening to experts I then thought not.
I'm sure antrin will point out any misinterpretation [emoji6]

[oaksoft]

8 hours ago, Drew said:

Witchcraft again

Did you even read the post I made earlier about Orkney in response to Chingford?

In fact, did you even read the post you quoted? If so, you'll perhaps grasp the fact that the NP isn't merely about framing innocent God-fearing people for satanic ritualistic abuse.

Its also about general child health and wellbeing. If you cannot accept that, whilst falling short of being victims of human sacrifice, many children in this country are in need of additional support from time to time (and, indeed, vulnerable) then you've either led a very sheltered life or are deliberately at the fanny.

Its that old "nanny state" line being trotted out again. Sadly, I've seen the reality of the lives experienced by damaged kids more times than I care to recall, and I don't think it is simply enough to rely on parents to do the right things at all times. I think a bit of collective responsibility is entirely appropriate.

I have to confess to being a bit surprised that you're so easily taken in by the Daily Mail approach to societal analysis.

 

Drew away and talk to someone else. Come back to me when you can accept that other people can have different views from you without being Daily Mail reading morons or "at the fanny" whatever the hell that is.

[Drew]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Drew away and talk to someone else. Come back to me when you can accept that other people can have different views from you without being Daily Mail reading morons or "at the fanny" whatever the hell that is.

Toys oot the pram