FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{I dont have time to argue now Figg- on the way out the door to work- but I'd love to know whats a loss of democracy about it, or a loss of individual freedom- unless you mean the freedom to abuse a child in your care of course- cause it will hopefully curb that.

Why dont you watch the actual debate? As rght now most of your information on it seems to come from hysterical tabloid sources (I will be tonight when i get back in) it should be on the parliament webstream live.}}}

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/14543292.Youth_worker_taking_up_named_person_role_says_scheme_will_unleash__pandemonium_/

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-64-of-scots-think-named-person-is-unacceptable-intrusion-1-4147256

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/new-row-over-named-person-as-campaigners-claim-parental-role-to/

extract from the comments section.

''NP will not stop child deaths as these cases are already well known to police health and social work. Fife, sadly, proves that. - It places a third party between parents and children that can involve secret undisclosed conversations with children, then shared with other agencies, but parents not informed. Transparency and openness is nowhere. - it can undermine trust between parent and child in healthy families- it could become a paedophiles charter giving access and formal credibility to private Named Person interventions with very young children - it allows increasing state judgements about what is in a childs "wellbeing", so vaguely defined , non judgemental it cannot be given the plethora of named persons involved - it spreads scarce resources thinly rather than targetting on high risk child protection families, so costly and wasteful, NP records on every child - it undermines civil liberties and rights to privacy, increasing state control over parental choice - existing contacts to health services via GPs, local police stations, social work offices, online are readily available as single points of access - It is likely to do FAR more harm and damage, than it is good, and worrying cases of misjudged NP interventions are already documented by parents who have been prepared to go public.''

Frankly, its 1984.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/two-thirds-of-scots-against-named-person-poll-shows/

''Almost two-thirds of Scots are opposed to the controversial Named Person scheme, a new poll by the Scottish Daily Mail has found.

According to the poll, 64 per cent of Scots believe the scheme, which appoints a state guardian to every child from before birth up to age 18, is an “unacceptable intrusion into family life”.
Fewer than one in five people (18.5 per cent) thought the scheme was not intrusive.
Legal challenge
Responding to the poll results Simon Calvert, spokesman for the No To Named Persons campaign, said: “This confirms the growing view that the Named Person is unwanted, unworkable and undemocratic.
“The more the public hears about the Named Person, the less they like it. The Government has lost the argument.”
Almost 50 per cent of those asked said it is wrong “for every child to be assigned a Named Person to monitor their wellbeing”.
The news comes as judges at the UK Supreme Court consider a legal challenge to the Scottish Government’s plans, brought by groups including The Christian Institute.''

Questions
A ruling against the Named Person scheme could put a halt to it ahead of its scheduled full implementation in August this year.
Last week, commentators questioned whether the Named Person scheme had some bearing on the tragic death of toddler Liam Fee.
Two-year-old Liam was murdered by his mother Rachel Trelfa and her civil partner Nyomi Fee in one of the most harrowing cases of abuse ever seen in Scotland.

Laurie Matthew, of anti-bullying and abuse charity 18 and Under, highlighted that Liam was known to the authorities and had “a named person of sorts”, but still “slipped through the cracks”.  Over the weekend, the Sunday Express revealed that in recent years minutes from the Child Protection Committee in Fife – the area where Liam lived – have been dominated by the implementation of new Government policy, including the Named Person scheme.

A few weeks before the toddler’s death, Fife’s leading child protection nurse warned that new policy was causing a “delay in development of the Child Protection service”.

Speaking to the Express, Dr Gordon MacDonald of CARE for Scotland, said: “While it is important to find out what went wrong in this specific case, they have got to look at the wider context of the Named Person reforms.

“They have created a huge amount of extra work without resourcing it properly and the danger of making the haystack so big is that you don’t catch the needle.”

64% of people don't want it.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/pipe/939070/64-think-named-person-policy-an-unacceptable-intrusion-poll-finds/

https://www.change.org/p/members-of-the-scottish-parliament-reject-girfec-surveillance-and-named-person-for-every-child-in-Scotland

http://no2np.org/named-person-impact-privacy-discussed-human-rights-conference/

• The failure to recognise the rights of children to privacy and to confidential advice;
• Whether Named Persons would be told of medical treatment of children including teenagers even where parents were not informed.
• How many Named Persons a child might have before the age of 18?
• How many Named Persons a family might have to deal with in addition to all the other professionals?
• The increasing use of pseudo neuroscience to justify the removal of infants at birth from mothers.
• The costs and consequences of the Named Person scheme compared to providing services currently being cut?
• Whether Named Persons would be held responsible for any child deaths or injuries?
• How teachers would be paid for giving up holidays and weekends?
• Who would be the Named Person in the long summer holidays?
• Why the scheme was supported in the first place? Did no party see any flaw in it?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{I dont have time to argue now Figg- on the way out the door to work- but I'd love to know whats a loss of democracy about it, or a loss of individual freedom- unless you mean the freedom to abuse a child in your care of course- cause it will hopefully curb that.

Why dont you watch the actual debate? As rght now most of your information on it seems to come from hysterical tabloid sources (I will be tonight when i get back in) it should be on the parliament webstream live.}}}

You seem very fond of the word 'hysterical' I have seen absolutely no evidence for hysteria, quite the opposite in fact. By calling people hysterical you are trying to denigrate peoples serious worries. Its not helpful. Criticise the law not the concerned parents.

{{{Its completely hysterical as a reaction Figg- just as when Obama tried to introduce innocuous sensible measures to have background checks before gun sales- and the reaction was he is trying to take all our guns away! The reaction to Named person by the sort of hysterical sources you list above are  much alike.

Todays Daily Record, a Labour paper, with no love for the SNP had an excellent full piece on the matter today- the writer says it all rather well-


'KEEP calm and listen to Tam. As Holyrood debates the Named Person legislation today, that’s my advice to anyone worried by some of the more ludicrous stories put out by the right-wing press.

Tam Baillie is Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.

He is politically neutral and therefore a source of sound advice on a topic which the Tories and their cheerleaders have misrepresented to a reckless extent.

So before we go any further, state snoopers will not be questioning the colour of your child’s bedroom wallpaper.

Nor will you be in the pokey for feeding them the occasional poke of chips.

For an impartial explanation of Named Person in clear English I can highly recommend Tam’s website – just go to your browser and type www.cypcs.org.uk/ufiles/Named-Person-statement.pdf.
Here, you will find Tam’s considered statement on the scheme. Named Person is nothing more than a point of contact.
It is a way of ensuring parents and children can easily access any help they need from a person they already know – effectively a teacher or, for under fives, a health visitor.

The legislation means these professionals MUST direct you to the support you need.

A good example might be if your child is being bullied but you cannot prove criminality.

With the legislation now in place, you would have someone who is obliged by law to take you seriously.

Another example might be if a child is exhibiting behavioural problems, perhaps as a result of some trauma, such as bereavement.

You now have a point of contact to direct you to support – perhaps the kind of help that could prevent the development of long-term mental health problems. This is what is known as “early
intervention” – a way to help families at an early stage to prevent really acute issues developing.

But you don’t need to ask and you don’t need to take the advice offered – the service is simply there to offer support if it is sought.

In Tam’s words: “While every child and young person will have a Named Person, this does not mean the Named Person will be actively involved in the child or young person’s life.

“Some children may never need the support of their Named Person, while others may require substantially more support.”

As Tam says in the first paragraph of his statement, it is NOT the case that rejection of advice will result in a visit from a social worker.

As he points out: “Some of the debate around this issue is both unhelpful and unnecessary, doing little to further sensible discussion and causing great anxiety for parents.”

Read more at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-keep-calm-trust-8137947#mw7LRuxpMBtEH0mB.99

I strongly recommend you read the link and inform yourself on the subject a bit more Figg rather than just rehashing right wing press hysteria- and do bear in mind there is only 1 SNP supporting newspaper in the entire UK- so off course the press are running these ludicrous stories to point score. Shame on you for taking them at face value and not checking the other side out though.}}}

{{Just looked over the details of the debate from this afternoon on the Named Peroson Policy' as covered by the BBC live parliamentary blog- where it was again backed by all the house, with some minor changes to how its implemented and how the public are informed of the scheme- but it passed easily.

Heres some of the highlights from the debate-

'The Tories sought consensus by calling for a "pause" in the policy, despite backing scrapping it altogether.
This was rejected by MSPs, who amended the motion to one backing the policy but agreeing "more must be done".
Holyrood voted to approve the named persons system by 103 votes to nil...

"The Scottish Conservatives (who called the debate) believe there is growing parliamentary consensus for a major rethink.

"But there is also growing concern expressed by many frontline professionals - many of whom have no party political affiliation.

"We believe there is an urgent need to address the practical concerns of professionals and parents about the workability of the policy which, if it is not dealt with, could seriously undermine the welfare of children across Scotland."

They did not however actually oppose the scheme on the day, despite that being their position.

Labour has also called for a "pause" in the roll-out of the named persons system, which has been trialled in some areas including Fife and the Highlands, to reassess public support for it.'


Note Labour dont oppose it either- they just think the public are worried because of the ridiculous hysterical nonsense like above said about it in the tory press.

'The Lib Dems offered "cautious support" for the policy, while the Scottish Greens spoke strongly in favour of it - and against any pause...The amendment, which was passed by MSPs to replace the wording of the Tory motion entirely, noted that "more must be done to ensure that implementation is successful, and that the Scottish government should refresh the guidance provided to professionals and the communication of the policy to the public".

Mr Swinney said the policy "embodies the principles we share as fundamental to supporting the lives of children and young people".

And he had strong words for the Conservatives, who he said had been "going around for months utterly misrepresenting" the policy.

When new Tory MSP Adam Tomkins warned of named persons working "behind the backs" of parents, Mr Swinney said he should be "ashamed", having "fuelled the absurdity of the attacks made on this policy".
Labour's Iain Gray, who also attacked the Tories for "opportunism", said his party backed the named persons system "if implemented properly and proportionally".

He said the government admitting some parents had concerns with the implementation was "a big, big step in the right direction".

However, he said the government had allowed "wild and wilful distortions of what this policy could mean to run unchecked"


Seems a bit harsh to me to blame the SNP however for how its been misrepresented in the press by right wing new outlets- they dont have much control over that.

But at the end of the day, the policy is still backed by every single party in the Scottish parliament to one degree or another, and is being opposed by none. Its backed by all the leading child experts and charities in Scotland. And it passed the Parliament without a vote cast against. }}}

'The requirement that all children and young people up to the age of 18 have a ‘named person’ from August 2016 has proved controversial. Is the scheme a good idea? Why?

Alison Todd, Chief Executive of Children 1st: Children 1st has long supported the proposals for a named person for every child in Scotland, and a child’s plan for those who need it. The idea came from children and families themselves, who highlighted that they would like a single point of contact and co-ordination between families and public sector agencies. Having over the years seen many reviews into what had gone wrong when a child was harmed, the finding that lack of co-ordination contributed is wearingly familiar. Of course, the proposals have been met with a certain level of anxiety, and I do understand these concerns. But a lot of the concern is due to misinformation. Children’s organisations, the government and public bodies have some work to do to communicate clearly the aims of the policy.

Tam Baillie, Children and Young People’s Commissioner: Yes, I believe the named person will help ensure children get the help they need, when they need it. In a sense, it is a universal early warning system for our children. I have expressed concerns about the potential extent of the information-sharing requirements, though, as we need to make sure professionals share information in a way that both protects children and young people and respects their rights.

Martin Crewe, Director of Barnardo’s Scotland: Yes, it is a good idea as it puts existing good practice into legislation. Health visitors and school guidance teachers are already effective at co-ordinating support to children and families, their named person status will merely reinforce this.'

ha ha this is probably Sturgeons revenge on all those 'anti-Scottish Scots who voted against independence. She is now trying to get em young so they cant rebel. nice plan. good luck with the totalitarian stasi state. 'The Party Loves You' ......(1984) fucking hell.....run!!!!

{{yup nothing hysterical about that Figg- much easier if you actually go read the facts and watch the two hour debate- you would be so much better informed than you so obviously are on this matter.
The Tories and the right wig press hare been going after this because they think its possibly a weakness where they can score points off the SNP- Davidson is wanting to make an instant impression as the new opposition leader having overtaken Labour at the election, and with the SNP not having a majority to vote it through on- but the result of the debate speaks for itself- the Tory amendment was replaced entirely with one which overall approves the scheme by the entire Parliament.
But hey, if rather than actually looking at the facts, listening to the experts in the field or taking the time to listen to the debate itself in Parliament you'd rather just regurgitate Tory propaganda and the words of the right wing press knock yourself out on that one. But you're doing their work for them continuing to spread what has been called by all other parties and specialists in the field - "ludicrous stories...misrepresented to a reckless extent.... both unhelpful and unnecessary.....causing great anxiety for parents.... utterly misrepresenting the policy...fuell(ing) the absurdity of the attacks....wild and wilful distortions of what this policy could mean'

But if thats the side you think is telling the truth, and all the experts and children charities in the field are wrong, then good luck to you with following them! }}}

{{{Yup cause a youtube blogger repeating misrepresented information in the press is a reliable source, and sooo much more credible than all the leading experts in the field! Give it up Figg- your 'I hate the SNP' stance is embarrassingly obvious when you do this sort of thing- until you are actually prepared to go read the actual facts -have you even read the law? Or the proposals? Or looked into the pilot schemes? Gone to the sources, read the minutes from the parliamentary debates and the passing of the legislation? Of course not- that would be to much like hard work and you might find out what I already know- you are regurgitation a load of old Tory pish. I have nothing more to say on the matter until you are prepared to go and look at actual evidence from Scotland, read the law, read the reports by the children experts and the charities ect- not this rehashed silliness with has as much resemblance to fact as my arse does to the face of the Mona Lisa}}}

oh dear you seem to be on the defensive. this issue has been serious enough to go to the High Court as a case of the abuse of human rights, hardly Tory propaganda, but the SNP blame the Tories for all their cock-ups because they cant stand being criticised. anyway good luck with the erosion of your human rights you will just have to put up and shut up when children are being used as political footballs and parents are being monitored in ever more creepy ways.

figg out.

Errr... that someone has brought a suit for breach of the european convention on human rights (you know the one the right wing press and the torries want to repeal) only means someone has brought a suit claiming a breach of their human rights..

It's an interesting legal case though. Should be said.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/09/08/controversial-named-person-scheme-upheld-by-the-court-of-session/

{{{{The High Courts summary says it all really-

'The named person scheme has been politically controversial with criticism directed in particular at the perceived interference with family life and the role of parents. It was striking that the Inner House attached little weight to these arguments, suggesting that they were hyperbolic. For the court, the named person scheme was similar to other public services. It was designed to help children and their families, offering advice and assistance, and had no effect on familial relationships and parental responsibilities.  

Also the case was brought primarily by the Christian Institute, an evangelical right wing conservative group who believe the Bible is literal truth, they also tried to take the Scottish Government to Court to stop gay marriage- good luck Figg having them as bedfellows!}}}}

Its rather pathetic how you twist everything into personal attacks against me just because I dare to question the Great Leader and her dodgy laws. Do you live in North Corea or Scotland where in theory one can question and debate without personal slurs? I thought not. In North Corea you aren't allowed to question, and there is blanket monitoring of every subject from the cradle, is this how you want to live? My initial concerns are the questions surrounding the apparent erosion of democracy, and as a result you tried to deflect and belittle my concerns by personally slurring me as a 'SNP hater' or joining some Tory hysteria which is patently absurd and insulting. I am very disappointed in your sinking to the lowest form of name calling. But don't worry if you wish to hero worship Wee Jimmy Krankie and Co without question, feel free. I don't have to live in the subsequent ludicrous atmosphere of suspicion and weird social engineering, you do, so good luck with it.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/named-person-scheme-will-break-doctor-patient-trust-critics-warn-wcg3jp6dd

Bluebottle wrote:Errr... that someone has brought a suit for breach of the european convention on human rights (you know the one the right wing press and the torries want to repeal) only means someone has brought a suit claiming a breach of their human rights..

Errr...they have taken it to the UK Supreme Court...got something useful to add about that?

{{{Figg what I am attacking is you regurgitating nonsense without even going to source to check the actual facts- for example your killer example is that its so serious its gone to High Court- you failed to mention its been taken there by a right wing conservative religious group (representing less than 1% of the population), or more importantly that the very High Court you think so important said of the sort of claims you are repeating that they - ' attached little weight to these arguments, suggesting that they were hyperbolic'- which is the polite way of saying 'talking a load of shite'.

As to the scheme itself and me blindly following- the SNP did not get both my votes at the last election, and if you actually go back in this thread you will see I have raised some concerns about aspects of the scheme myself - mainly how the information is handled and with what safeguards- but those very issues are what the pilot schemes are there to monitor and iron out and I am happy with the scrutiny these aspects are being given in the Parliament, in committees, and by the opposition parties.

Also you claim this is totalitarian style infringement on rights- so why it is supported by the Lib Dems and the Greens? Two of the UK's most progressive partiess and both of who have a very strong civil liberties and rights history. How do you explain their voting for it if its anything like what you claim? Why aren't they fightng this in the same way they are the 'snoopers charter' at Westminister? Why have they voted for it (the Greens in particular are big supporters of it) Or are the Lib Dems and Greens also blinded by Nicola?

Also I find it odd you should seek at every turn to put her down, comparing her to a dwarf comedian childrens entertainer who pretends to be male- that seems both offensive and sexist to me and just a way to denigrate her- something I would normally think of as something a male might say who feels threatened by her. }}}

Mrs Figg wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Errr... that someone has brought a suit for breach of the european convention on human rights (you know the one the right wing press and the torries want to repeal) only means someone has brought a suit claiming a breach of their human rights..

Errr...they have taken it to the UK Supreme Court...got something useful to add about that?

That the plaintiffs have lost completely for the two previous instances of the the Scottish Courts.

I'd be interested to see the case handled by the European Court of Human Rights though. (You know, the one that the right wing press and the Torries want to abolish.)

Named Person Scheme...Perverts charter

http://mashednews.com/test/lifetime-ban-for-moray-teacher-over-sexually-explicit-text-messages/

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Errr... that someone has brought a suit for breach of the european convention on human rights (you know the one the right wing press and the torries want to repeal) only means someone has brought a suit claiming a breach of their human rights..

Errr...they have taken it to the UK Supreme Court...got something useful to add about that?

That the plaintiffs have lost completely for the two previous instances of the the Scottish Courts.

I'd be interested to see the case handled by the European Court of Human Rights though. (You know, the one that the right wing press and the Torries want to abolish.)

we are talking about the SNP not the Tories. why do the Tories even figure in this conversation I have no idea.

Because we are talking about a government scheme the Tories and the right wing press want abolished, and they are looking for redress in another system they want abolished from national law. (I do find the hypocrisy entertaining, however.)

1.The Christian Institute
2.Family Education Trust
3.The Young ME Sufferers ("Tymes") Trust
4.CARE (Christian Action Research & Education)
5.James McIntosh
6.Rhianwen McIntosh
7.Deborah Thomas


actually you need to get your facts straight before casting nasturtions.....at my alleged lack of information, you don't seem to have ''the actual facts'' there happen to be 7 separate appellants only one of which seems to be a Christian religious group, right wing or not

- Figg

{{{
1.The Christian Institute - Evangelical Conservative group
2.Family Education Trust - claims to have no religious or political affiliations on it's website but that's a lie. Powerbase lists it as -'a conservative moral campaign organisation created in 1971' Here's an example of their thinking from the organisations Head Norman Wells, co-author of 'Waking up to the Morning After Pill' and who advocates against sex education and in promoting abstinence- in his own words from an article in the Guardian- 'The organisations demanding compulsory sex education in all schools share a strong hostility towards teaching children the positive benefits of saving sex for marriage'
Making them an ideal orginisation to be judging child welfare needs on a national level I think not- if they had their way we would not have sex education in schools.
3.The Young ME Sufferers ("Tymes") Trust - nothing against them, dont know what their beef is exactly but hope its addressed, thats what the pilots and consultations and committee scrutiny of bills is for. They do have a lot of Tory MP's and Lords and Ladies on the patrons list mind you and the Scottish Conservatives and Ruth Davidson in particular are the political face fo this sort of scaremongering.
4.CARE (Christian Action Research & Education)- describe their goals as 'to see a society that has a greater regard for human dignity and increasingly reflects God’s grace and truth through public policy, media and local practical involvement with vulnerable people.' and their purpose as 'to be engaged in the UK Parliaments & Assemblies and to equip individual Christians and the churches to act as effective ‘light and salt’ in the local community and nationally.' Wonder what their view on gay marriage is?
5.James McIntosh- with 6 below, his wife, they were part of one of the pilots schemes for the named person. As well as this case they have already tried to get the legislation stopped in Scotland which took it to the Scottish Court of Session and a panel of some of the highest judges in Scotland.
Heres is the Judges verdict on their claims, and on the sort of claims you have been making here Figg-

'Refusing the appeal based upon the Article 8 right to respect for a private and family life, the judges observed that all that the legislation does, and is intended to do, is “…to provide for every child and his or her family a suitably qualified professional who can, if necessary, act as a single point of contact between the child and any public service from which the child could benefit”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice Clerk said: “The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally. It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The legislation does not involve the state taking over any functions currently carried out by parents in relation to their children.”

The challenges under Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol 1 also failed, as the court held that the 2014 Act contained ”no colourable interference, or even potential interference” with a parent’s or child’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and that the legislation contained “no provision which bears upon a child’s right to education or his parent’s right to bring up a child according to his conscience and religion”.

If the scheme was seen as interfering with Convention rights, the court considered that such interference is in accordance with the law, has a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, amongst other things, public safety, the prevention of crime, the protection of health or morals or of the rights of others.

The court held that the scheme has the appearance of “achieving a balance” in which the advantages of early detection of potential welfare issues involving a child “outweigh” any adverse effect of the measure on the Convention rights of parents and children generally.

The challenges to the information sharing and disclosure provisions in the Act were also rejected.

Lord Carloway said: “The 2014 Act makes it clear to all those concerned that information may be shared between service providers in certain defined circumstances; notably if it is necessary or expedient to enable a named person to carry out his or her statutory functions. These functions are clearly set out and involve, broadly stated, advising the child or young person and helping him or her to access the correct service or support and raising a matter concerning the child with a service provider or relevant authority.”

The court further held that the 2014 Act did not encroach upon reserved matters, stating: “Its pith and substance is child protection.”
6.Rhianwen McIntosh- see above
7.Deborah Thomas - couldnt find out much about her save she was part of a pilot test area and concerned after learning her child had filled in 'a weird and creepy survey' at school without her knowledge- which make you wonder how she knew it was weird and creepy.

And ys I had already checked most of these out before I made the last post , and felt it not worth listing them all as in general the majority were singing for the same hymn sheet, and in many press reports its the 'Christian Institute and others' or 'associates' so its clear which group was leading the case, and probably the main financiers of it too.

'many polls show that a majority of the population are against the Named Persons Scheme'- Figg

Yes they do, at the moment when most people know very little about how it works and have got their information from the press, who are overwhelmingly right wing or labour, both sides looking to score points of the SNP.

As part of the debate in Parliament yesterday on the bill it was agreed in the amendment that part of what was to be done was for the public to be better informed- with Labour going so far as to say the SNP had failed by not doing that and letting the misrepresentation of it flourish- which is what you are repeating here, the misrepresentations.
Today it was announcemed their will be a public information campaign set out explaining it to the public. I'll wait till then and the results of the pilot schemes before I decide if I think they've got it worked out- but everything I find out about it only confirms its been a long developed, widely consulted, carefully planned out picee of legislation.

'pilot schemes are rolled out in isolated areas of the country away from scrutiny'

Fife is not an isolated area by Scottish standards. But it is actually wise to pick areas with less dense populations and spread out services due to geography for such a scheme- especially considering how much of Scotland is rural- 59% of Scotland s population live in a rural location.

'and part of this so called pilot scheme included the area where that boy was murdered, so it failed abysmally to protect kids'

You keep saying this despite all the agencies involved, the minister responsible, the local MP, even the Labour party saying it had nothing to do with tragedy, and how disgraceful it is of the Tories to try to draw that connection and use a childs death to political point score. The part involving the named person worked, the child was known to social services- the failures happened after the named person part in the process was long over. Using a child death to point score when all parties involved agree there was no link and it had not failed is a poor game to play, whether its the Tories or you playing it.

'so called support from the Greens is according to them ''cautious'' '

No thats the Lib Dems and their concerns were about resources- Lib Dem Tavish Scott also voiced some support for the policy, saying parents and carers could "say thanks but no thanks" to their child's named person.
However, he lodged an amendment to Mr Swinney's contribution noting the concerns of health professionals and school staff about resources needed for implementation, which was accepted after a vote.'- BBC

The Greens said according to BBC Scotland's reporting of the debate- 'the Scottish Greens spoke strongly in favour of it - and against any pause'.



'As for Labour ''While Labour voted for the Bill introducing the named person scheme in February 2014, it called for a "pause" in the policy in the recent election campaign, as Ms Sturgeon came under fire repeatedly over its compulsory and universal nature, and claims it would lead to a disproportionate and unwarranted state intrusion into family life'' I quote'-Figg

And yesterday they voted for it - 'Labour's Iain Gray, who also attacked the Tories for "opportunism", said his party backed the named persons system "if implemented properly and proportionally".

He said the government admitting some parents had concerns with the implementation was "a big, big step in the right direction".
However, he said the government had allowed "wild and wilful distortions of what this policy could mean to run unchecked", calling for a "pause" in implementation while an external review is carried out.
His amendment to this end was rejected by MSPs.'- I quote!

So he wanted a pause yes, but for a review, not because Labour don't back the scheme, but because he thinks the SNP have let the Tories and the media spin a load of scare nonsense about it of the sort you keep repeating here!

The facts are the facts- I don't now if in-practise the scheme will work or not, I hope it does I hope it saves lives. But what I do know is its not a totalitarian plot to take control of the nations children or indoctrinate them into the SNP! }}}