Scottish Named Person Scheme breaches European Human Rights

[barrydidit]

Exactly...

Your child gets a say in things like how their room is decorated and what to watch on TV

Falls under the wellbeing category of Respected

Respect?
£100 buys them their own fcuking tv. Take that out of their pocket money.
As for the decorating - unless my kids are interior designers then they can swivel . If they want to fook off to B&Q, drag all the crépe back up the road, bust their balls for 3 days and then have their efforts tutted at by their mother then they can be my twatting guest.
Lets see how respected they feel then.

[original PM]

Isn't this law needed because half the people in Scotland are permanently pissed and their kids are pretty much feral?

[Old Greg]

Link
The Named Person Scheme - NO2NP

(admittedly from the campaign group) that references a government document that discusses "getting it right for every child" that mentions the home decorating.

I'm sure it came up in the court of session, I definitely remember it was discussed as a point although in extremis and the government agreed it was possible. I cant find the link at the moment.

The leaflet is a bit silly, isn't it?

Every child needs to be Respected

Being respected means things like…

Your child is treated as an individual
Your child is listened to and
taken seriously
Your child can keep things private if
they want
Your child gets a say in things like
how their room is decorated and
what to watch on TV

People who work with your child will check your child is
respected.


Every child needs to be Responsible

Being responsible means things like…

Your child knows about right and
wrong
Your child says sorry when they do
something wrong
Your child has the right level of
responsibility for their age –
they tidy their room or do the dishes
You trust your child to do
the right thing

People who work with your child will check your child is
responsible.

I don't think that the examples given are exactly the same as the pressure group presentation but never mind:

Named Persons are given some of the duties of parents. A Government-funded leaflet said this includes having to check if children get a say in how their room is decorated and what they watch on TV.

But the rather silly government nonsense becomes truly terrifying now we learn that:

The government admitted in court that the named person could become involved if the child was unhappy with their bedroom wallpaper.

And I can't wait to see the court transcript or other reputable source for this.

[Old Greg]

[QUOTE=barrydidit;2292067]Respect?
£100 buys them their own fcuking tv. Take that out of their pocket money.

They have to have their own TV as well???!!!

This gets more and more shocking. Which reputable source did you pick this up from?

[Old Greg]

With the continuing absence of the court transcripts, I am becoming concerned that this whole wallpaper business may be a dreadful exaggeration by the so-called Christian Institute:

Already a Scottish Government-funded booklet has told parents they should only choose their child’s bedroom wallpaper after consultation with the child concerned.

State guardians: New poll provides clear evidence of widespread public opposition to big brother’s ‘unacceptable intrusion’ into family life | Press Releases | The Christian Institute

[minestrone]

I usually don't post links to opinion pieces and I don't agree with pretty much anything common space write..

Feminist campaigner and former social worker Maggie Mellon explains why she's welcoming a recent decision from the Supreme Court on the controversial Named Person law

Challenge after challenge emerged – about guidance which advised that the Named Person would check on children having choice in their home lives about bedroom décor, and bedtimes, about children being told that their parents were gardeners but the Named Person was the head gardener, about 261 risk factors that Named Persons had to consider, (one risk – 'being under five' – gives an idea of the nature of this scatter gun approach), about what happened in the school holidays (an unnamed would be holding the baby), about why 16 year olds could vote and marry, and leave school but still needed a Named Person.*

The appeal and the campaign has been largely funded by the Christian Institute. I considered my position in relation to this very carefully before I agreed to lend my name to the campaign. I agreed to support the campaign only when I had assured myself that it would not be party political, would not promote any one religion or religious belief, that there would be no anti-gay, anti-women, or racist sentiments espoused, and that it would not defend the physical punishment of children.*
I and others also stressed that the campaign would defend families of all shapes and sizes and beliefs. Christianity is a religion which is as entitled as any other to its beliefs. In fact, religion is a protected characteristic under equality law – every religion.*
It is ironic that many people who decry Islamophobia seemingly don’t believe that Christianity is entitled to the same tolerance as Islam. When I spoke at public meetings of the campaign I met families who were genuinely frightened of having the care of their children threatened because of their religious beliefs.
They are entitled to their beliefs – and they have a right to tell their children what they believe even if it is seven-day creationism. I shared beliefs with my children about lots of things that the government of the day or even their head teacher might have found objectionable. Indeed, Section 28 was still in force when we told our children it was wrong.*
The Christian Institute people no doubt found some of my beliefs objectionable as I would theirs, but the No2NP campaign did not stray into promoting any such views. So much for the campaign and its supporters.*

I highlighted those little bits for you.


http://www.commonspace.scot/articles...h-independence

[minestrone]

Old Greg:
Current Activity
Viewing Thread Scottish Named Person Scheme breaches European Human Rights