Here’s a column from Kenny Farquharson in today’s tablet edition of the Times, which hasn’t made it onto the website. We don’t know if it’s in the print version.
Let’s just linger over those words for a moment.
Because it appears we live, readers, in a world where the Scottish media regards “the power of child protection now applies to every child” as describing a BAD thing.
How do we know which children are “at risk”? Which children might at some point be abused? Can we rule out children from families with more than a certain level of income? Perhaps only Muslim children are at risk. Perhaps if you’ve got two parents rather than one you’re safe. Maybe science has discovered that only children with an odd number of letters in their name get abused. Goodness knows.
We might well never have read a stupider statement in our life than the one in the image above. It hurts us to even spell it out: ANY child can be at risk. There’s no way of knowing in advance. EVERY child deserves protection.
Later in the piece, Farquharson says this:
In other words, people whose actual business is the protection of children think he’s talking cobblers. They think the named-person legislation is “wholly a force for good” – an opinion which is shared by all of Scotland’s major children’s welfare groups and, in an unusually strongly-worded judgement, by the Court of Session.
But what would they know, compared to a hack with a blank page to fill in a hurry on a holiday weekend, eh?
The column is the ultimate in “SNP BAD”. You can’t satirise or exaggerate someone saying “protection for every child in Scotland is a bad law”. It’s empirical insanity.
Sometimes, folks, it’s all we can do to lift our heads from the desk and carry on.