The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


A great day for child abusers

Posted on July 28, 2016 by

Well done to everyone concerned. Paedophiles and the Daily Mail will be partying hard tonight. Although as it later transpired, only for a while. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Named Persons legislation needed a small tweak on data-protection grounds which will most likely delay it for a few months, condemning more children to needless suffering, its core aims in fact WERE lawful.

(It remains to be seen how much the restrictions on information-sharing will hamper the successful operation of the scheme.)

This won’t stop the campaign against it, however, so there’s still hope for those who want to batter toddlers to death without interference from the pesky nanny state.

We’d say more, but just read this again.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

329 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Malky

No price too high to put the SNP down.

alba

So does this then mean that the UK supreme court is def the highest legal authority in Scotland ie scots law subservient?

Calgacus

The “Supreme Court” can fuck off and yes that is contempt

Skip_NC

So, let me get this right. Three judges from another country, along with two expats can overrule learned judges who live and work in Scotland? That’s nuts.

Habib Steele

Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?

I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary. A number of items in the Act trouble me, in particular, one person, the NP, having authority concentrated in her/him to decide whether or not to involve the parents should a matter of concern arise.

Hamish100

Cant quite see who were the Judges.

Can they be identified?

Vestas

No surprise here that “Christian” organisations were behind this (Christian Institute, Care, Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust).

After all their “Church” is responsible (and continues to be responsible) for the vast majority of non-familial child rapes.

There should be an appeal against the decision to the EU by ScotGov ASAP.

Norman Ross

Though my understanding of it, is that it’s been blocked on technical grounds (how it’s been implemented – too much irrelevant data sharing) – they didn’t strike it down on basis of principle though. So the religous fundamentalist and anti-vaxxer nutjobs might yet find it a rather bitter sweet victory.

Willie John

Sod the Supreme Court, lets take this to the ECHR. (Never could understand how a Scottish court, administrating Scottish law, could be overruled by what is to all intents and purposes an English court.)

One_Scot

England ‘take back control’ from Europe so that they can have more control over Scotland.

Don’t you just love being part of this ‘special’ union. Better Together, I don’t think so.

Bill

Another material change.

Philip Dixon

I think I’d need a flowchart and three coloured highlighters to follow that judgement properly, but as far as I can tell it just needs a tweak to the data protection elements. I’m not convinced this is as bad as you think.

mike cassidy

So

setting aside the irony of the Tories agreeing with the European Court Of Human Rights

what aspects of information sharing in the proposed legislation are not devolved?

Another Union Dividend

The Supreme Court decision is yet another reason for Independence.

Its ruling stated the aim of the Act is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”, but said specific proposals about information-sharing “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

So much for the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

Davy

Nice ! to see the Scottish governments forward thinking being put in its place by another country’s law-makers.

get us to fuck out of this union.

louis.b.argyll

The hypocrisy of paranoia from the right of our political sphere is a joke.

Surely the right not to be abused or murdered by one’s own family, trumps the right of a dodgy family to it’s privacy.

heedtracker

Habib Steele says:
28 July, 2016 at 10:17 am
Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?

I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary. A number of items in the Act trouble me, in particular, one person, the NP, having authority concentrated in her/him to decide whether or not to involve the parents should a matter of concern arise.”

Social workers in particular appear to make decisions that do not involve parents, all the time. This authority concentration in stuff is bullshit.

Also, outfits like the Daily Heil makes money looking at little girls in their underpants. UKOK life doesn’t get much creepier than in their media.

Capella

Reposting this here. Here are the biographies of the Supreme court judges. There are two who are Scottish apparently.
link to supremecourt.uk

Also, in the FAQ section it asks if the Supreme court can over rule the UK Parliament and the Devolved Parliaments. I would say that they have acted outwith their powers here.

Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?

No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court’s role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.

Can the UKSC overrule Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in other parts of the UK?

The UKSC can hear ‘devolution issues’, which include questions about whether a Bill or Act of Parliament, or any provision of a Bill or Act of Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, a question whether an Order in Council, Assembly Measure, Act of the Assembly or Bill is within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly can also be referred to the UKSC.

link to supremecourt.uk

Duncan Lundie

The BBC’s report is a load of guff. The Supreme Court decided that the information-sharing provisions of the legislation were in breach of EU law, and have given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify ONLY THAT PART of the legislation. The rest is sensationalist nonsense.

Scott Borthwick

When the dust settles, it will be noted that the Supreme Court has not torpedoed the legislation, the aims of which it described in its judgment as “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. I suspect it will be less effective with the information sharing provisions being watered down or removed. However, I believe that the institutions behind the legal challenge have questionable motives and have used questionable methods to secure this judgment, including misrepresenting the intent and likely application of the legislation.

It is somewhat ironic that the Scottish Government is bound by the decision of an institution applying the principles of the ECHR when England is going hell for leather trying to wriggle out of human rights obligations to its subjects.

Peter McCulloch

From now on if child suffers or dies from abuse.

Then all of those including Tory Liz Smith who are against
the named person act must be publicly held to account for opposing legislation which may have helped prevent a child from being abused in the first place.

bill

Unbelievable, blocked due to EU Human Rights for data sharing by a country that voted to leave EU.
Howeverthe. judges deemed it lawful and benign. SG to find a more secure way of data sharing.

heedtracker

Straight in with the great and exciting Guardian Scotland section news. How hard are the teamGB media going to work this

link to archive.is

“But the supreme court challenge was brought by the NO2NP campaign, a coalition which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education) and the Family Education Trust.”

More details soon …

Ellie Mack

I think everyone needs to calm down.

Leaving aside whether we agree with the “Supreme” Courts right to hear the case – and as it happens I don’t think it has that right but we all already know the only solution for that – then looking at what they appear to have said they have not actually thrown out Named Person at all, they have reflected what a lot of us already feel, that the legislation as it stands is simply not good enough and they have given the Scottish government an opportunity to amend the legislation to make it completely compliant with Human Rights Legislation.

I have only skimmed the Judgement but a couple of phrases stood out, firstly the judgement affirms that Named Person is a legitimate and benign process HOWEVER the problems are not with the principle of the act but the structure of the legislation itself.

John Swinney has confirmed they will improve the legislation and bring it forward as soon as possible so we are talking a delay, not abandonment.

I have had issues with Named Person all along, not with the principle but because the legislation to me seemed poorly defined and open to abuse so while I don’t believe the judges had the right to make the judgement I don’t disagree with their conclusion.

Legislation is NOT a magic spell, it has to be precise, it has to be unimpeachable. It must be fair, clear and above all workable, having read the previous legislation I can’t say that I thought it was any of that, however well intentioned it is.

This is a chance to get the legislation RIGHT, which in this case is far more important than anything else. John Swinney is by far the best person to take this forward and I hope the new improved legislation will provide the best protection to children and families, which I hope is the primary concern of everyone.

mike cassidy

Info on supreme court here.

link to supremecourt.uk

This is the opening part of the PDF file about the right of the Supreme Court to hear Scottish Appeals.

“The purpose of this document is to set out the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (‘the Supreme Court’) to hear appeals in Scottish cases, with a particular focus on two aspects of that jurisdiction: ? The Supreme Court’s power to hear civil and criminal cases in which human rights issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) arise. The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal in such matters (the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will only consider such cases when applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies in their own state). The changes to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, first, in Scottish criminal cases as a result of the Scotland Act 2012 (‘the 2012 Act’ which ensured that the High Court of Justiciary retained the power ultimately to resolve cases once the Supreme Court has determined the legal question at issue and, second, by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 which introduced a requirement to obtain permission to appeal in civil cases”

Ironically, the Holyrood government could appeal to the ECHR on this!

galamcennalath

Peter McCulloch says:

“including Tory Liz Smith who are against
the named person act must be publicly held to account for opposing legislation”

I thought the Tories abstained and didn’t vote against it when it went through parliament.

Speaking against AFTER allowing it to pass without any votes against, is just opportunist politicking. And, on a subject which should be beyond playing cheap political games.

Ghillie

John Swinney’s response, calm, measured, dignified and willing to accept guidance to improve the Named Person legislation was a delight to read.

That is real statemanship.

No matter how the BUM try to twist this.

McHaggis69

Ok, here are a few points for those that really don’t understand –
The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the UK for certain legal matters. It is NOT an English Court. Lord Hodge who sat is Scottish. Many judges who sit in the Supreme Court are Scottish. In some instances, Scots law usurps what has previously been applied in England (lookup woolway v Mazar for proof).
Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us. Its not an English Court over-ruling scots law.

heedtracker

Scott Borthwick says:
28 July, 2016 at 10:36 am
When the dust settles, it will be noted that the Supreme Court has not torpedoed the legislation,

Its a huge political triumph over SNP Scots.gov, especially for the BBC Pacific Quay crew. It wouldn’t matter what the issue was, as long they can defeat SNP government. Such is Scottish democracy.

link to bbc.co.uk

Usual BBC attack propaganda, who or what exactly is the Christian Institute and why do the liggers think any info about them is irrelevant? Ruth Davidson will be getting ready for a whole day of BBC live cam stuff.

Pentland Firth

John Swinney doesn’t seem to be that bothered by the court’s verdict, so why should we?

Amending legislation to comply with the Court’s ruling can be introduced and passed by the Scottish parliament within 42 days.

The Tories and their friends in the media, however, will never be satisfied. We can be certain that their disgraceful fear mongering campaign will continue.

[…] Wings Over Scotland A great day for child abusers Well done to all concerned. Paedophiles and the Daily Mail will be partying […]

liz

I agree with the above, surely this is against the Treaty of Union.

Scots law was always independent as part of the agreement to ToU

Fireproofjim

Apart from being a breach of the Treaty of Union, where all law is retained in Scotland, I note that the petitioners were an organisation called Christian Action Research and Education.
Such an named organisation must immediately raise doubts, as a long history of child abuse can be laid at the door of Christian organisations such as the Christian Brothers, the Abbey School at Fort Augustus, and a host of individuals and religious institutions.
Religion should have special place in the protection of children. They forfeited that right long ago.

heedtracker

McHaggis69 says:
28 July, 2016 at 10:52 am
Ok, here are a few points for those that really don’t understand –
The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the UK for certain legal matters. It is NOT an English Court.

Is that like how the Queen, the Commons and the Lords have total control over all the big stuff in their Scotland region but it is NOT the English Westminster?

Andrew Brophy

I think folk ought to calm down.

The headline over the article on this site is very poor fare indeed. The independence movement has got to be more mature, and more considered, than some of the contributions here.

I saw the head of Barnardos in Scotland on the BBC this morning, and he was less than convincing in his support for the legislation. It is no bad thing that the implications of this legislation are looked at again.

Scott Borthwick

Mike Cassidy. You are right, the Scottish Government could technically appeal to ECHR in Strasbourg. I doubt they will, though. The legislation has not been struck down, despite hysterical headlines suggesting just that.

John Swinney’s response speaks volumes. I wonder if, by quietly complying with the Court’s judgment, he will effectively out maneuver the NO2NP shower. They are currently shouting to the heavens about their great victory. Should the SG come up with new provisions in the legislation that satisfy the court, NO2NP will have great difficulty in appealing a decision they ‘won’.

I agree with Peter McCulloch. Liz Smith and her ilk should be considered responsible for every day that this legislation is delayed.

bill
Ali

I’m an SNP member and I don’t like this law. Is that OK or is going against the party forbidden? If we believed that social services were always good, always right, always to be trusted maybe. But they aren’t – they are as arrogant as they are incompetent. Orkney abuse scandal Mk II anybody?

ClanDonald

So, wait, the Supreme Court can hear devolved issues but not UK Parliament issues? So it can decide on anything related to laws on health, education, policing etc in Scotland but not anything related to laws on health, education and policing in England as these are UK Parliament issues under EVEL?

Did I get this right?

Discrimination or what? So much for a union of equals.

heedtracker

Andrew Brophy says:
28 July, 2016 at 11:05 am
I think folk ought to calm down.

Which folk do you mean though? Any reaction from YESers is irrelevant. Its all about yoon triumphalist stuff BBC style and UKOK muscle flexing. And who are the Christian Institute exactly?

link to christian.org.uk

Victory! for Jesus.

bill

Andrew, the legislation is fine. It’s the data sharing protection that has to be tweaked.

One_Scot

Lol. ‘Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us’

Speak for yourself.

‘Jeez, sometimes my anti scotish chip gets the better of me’

There fixed that for you.

heedtracker

Jesus Christ.

’Totalitarian’

In one devastating line from the judgment, the Supreme Court justices observed:

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.”

The Christian Institute co-ordinated the successful legal action.

Institute Director, Colin Hart, said the ruling was a “vindication” of what the Institute and others had been saying for years.

’Endorsement’

Mr Hart said: “This is a devastating blow for the Scottish Government which sought to brush off all criticism of its Named Person scheme as ‘scaremongering’”.

The Court stated that “within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way

Bob Mack

The ruling of the Supreme Court is what concerns me should we leave the EU. Remember who will be the last arbiter of Scottish sovereignty in the event that question is queried. The Supreme Court.

The protestors have won their point,but not their case,in that they utilised EU Human Rights legislation Re data protection. Should the UK decide to leave the EU and suspend EU human rights law, then Scotland could not use this route in a Sovereignty dispute.

Ultimately the Named Person WILL be applied and that is what really matters.

Bill

Ali
The NP would give a single point of contact for multi agency involvement. Currently each agency may not know of each others involvement unless a parent volunteered that information. It’s how many victims fall through the net.

Bob Mack

@Ali,

Scottish historical abuse scandal Mk2 anybody ? Remember? The one they have just appointed a new judge to lead. Sheesh.

heedtracker

Mr Hart very triumphant today but quick google and Mr Hart warns that EU debate could be “very damaging to religious liberty.” It’s nice having an invisible friend up in the sky.

link to youtube.com

Bill

Fuck Jesus! How’s that for calming down?

Molly

Curious , is the Christian action research and education the same one on wiki that states some of its people work for MPs ( in particular the Conservatives) and talks about far right groups?

Ali like you don’t always agree with SNP policies (altho no objection to this one) but I do object to religious groups having over due influence on what effects my kids

Especially when they are involved with political parties or have a large lobbying contingent.

If this is the correct group mentioned, why is our media not informing the public who they are?

ScottishPsyche

By addressing these issues now the SG can hopefully be confident that after the implementation of the amended Act, procedures can go ahead without these groups bringing court cases at every juncture.

Perhaps it is for the best. Had the Act gone ahead, many of these groups would have brought up spurious cases to bog down the courts for months.

Hopefully the information sharing can be clarified to be at the very least that which is helpful to the child in question.

The aim remains the same – to avoid the breakdowns in communication so often seen in multi-agency cases and to provide a contact point for children in need.

Of course parents rights should be taken into account. However when the child cannot count on the parent(s)to do the right thing they must have an alternative route.

Dan Huil

England’s supreme court overrules Scotland.

Elaine

Stu

You are way off the mark here. I’m not anti SNP, I’ve campaigned for indy. I am absolutely against the NP scheme. You need to be aware what it means for families, not vulnerable at risk ones – they get lost as now they’re needles in the haystack – but any family. That’s the thing.

It’s a nightmare – like arguing against an automated telephone system. Reality and sense is absolutely missing. The suspicion you can’t defend against because of the jargon and bullshit. If you try it ‘proves’ that you are deficient. It’s a nightmare. Being outnumbered by ‘titles’ and forced to meetings that disrupt your life and stress out the whole family – bad for the kids and ruins happy childhood years (that you can never get back). You’ve no power over your own family. They have it, and there’s nothing you can do.

The scheme does that, that’s what it does. It does not help save kids in any way. I’m a parent of 4 – did you know that’s a risk factor? Never mind what else we have going for us, ‘form says no’. The more people ‘knowledge’ is passed between (mandatory), a false premise like that becomes ‘fact’. It’s so wrong. It biases every way they deal with you. Even if you disprove it every time you communicate, the checkbox is ticked to be read again by someone else. You’re trapped. It’s a nightmare.

Possessing clarity of vision against insanity, if you experience it I think you’d immediately realise.

It’s parents who are against it no matter their party preference. SNP activists are just reacting, using anger and derision as if those against NP are all motivated by ‘SNP bad’ or are raving ‘yoons’. Some are, obviously. But that’s a red herring. Truly, it’s a mistake. Their conclusion that anyone against the scheme is a callous child welfare opponent is sick. Ordinary parents – behind the political opportunism, that’s who is steadfastly against the scheme – do not think like that.

It doesn’t happen often but on this one you aren’t right.

David

McHaggis69 said “Jeez, sometimes our own anti english chip gets the better of us.”

McHaggis, we expect to be called “chippy Scots”, “sweaty socks”, “jocks”, “scroungers”, etc etc ad nauseam by our enemies.
These phrases are purposefully demeaning, intended to be insulting, and to “other” us.

There is no reason for you to do the work of the enemies of Scotland.

I am not chippy. I am not anti-English. Apologise to me now.

You may also wish to apologise to the rest of the population of Scotland. Your comment was not welcome.

Martin Richmond

I know it doesn’t suit the narrative of this site or its acolytes, but the reason this worthy legislation will be delayed, and that additional children may be harmed, is quite simple. It is due to poorly constructed legislation and the fault for that can lie nowhere but the Scottish Parliament and its Civil Servants.

Graeme Borthwick

The Supreme Court ruled that the legislation be delayed for six weeks to allow modifications to information-sharing.
Swinney is onto this already. The Court said that the legislation was”unquestionably legitimate and benign”.
You will find none of this in the Herald who have even closed comments on the article.

jimnarlene
jimnarlene

@ Martin Richmond,

Your point is valid, but delivered dickishly.

Bill

Em, NP mass hysteria?

NP will protect children who already have agency involvement. Please stop the hysteria that the state are going to spy on you.

Breeks

So war criminal Tony Blair’s Supreme Court, which by its own admission (AXA vs Lord Advocate 12th October 2011) cannot overrule the popular sovereignty of Scotland’s population, is now doing precisely that, by citing a shortcoming under European Human Rights Legislation, to undermine the parliament of Scotland’s democratically elected government, thus using European legislation, which the UK has population has elected to abandon by exiting Europe anyway, but who’s parliament has arbitrarily decided to postpone indefinitely?

Somebody tell me again that the UK isn’t taking the piss.

And while you’re there, tell me again, SNP has a plan, trust me, trust me, everything is under control, Nicola’s great isn’t she? Europe just loves us to bits. I haven’t heard it for a few hours, and people might be prone to wonder if anything has changed if we don’t have these constant and powerful reminders.

I assume that the SNP will be declaring this decision void on the grounds that the Supreme Court is not competent to usurp the authority of Scotland’s democratically elected government? Or would that be considered by the SNP as just causing too much fuss and giving the press yet another field day?

I wonder whether these pressmen are accomplished at a-shootin’ and a-fishin’ yet, like real country gents with all the field days they’ve been having lately.

I’m getting angry now. Not with Unionists for being unionists, shitting on Scotland is their whole raison d’être, but wondering whether Brexit was our “turn back at Derby” watershed. We now have our Indyref 2 apparently conditional upon the triggering of Article 50, which cunning old Westminster is never going to trigger, which rather implies that down the line, we will need something bigger and more momentous than Brexit to happen, just to prompt Indyref 2. Hmmm. We might be in trouble. Off the top of my head, I’m not exactly sure what might constitute something bigger and badder than Brexit, and what kind of timescale such events crop up at all.

I’ve now realised. Watching the SNP is like watching Andy Irvine playing rugby. Flourishes of brilliance interspersed with booming great drop kicks covering over half the pitch for length, and delivering the games initiative to the opposition. 51 caps and not one single conversion attempt that you would break from prayer to watch.

So, back to the same old chestnut.,. Why do we need a parliament full of politicians to take back our Independence when it seems all we need, and have actually ever needed, is a half decent constitutional lawyer?

Peter McCulloch

@galamcennalath
28 July, 2016 at 10:45 am

Sorry galamcennalath, I was just checking I was being factually correct in what I said
sorry I don’t have the links to the article
below

Child named person plan “monstrous invasion”
Scotsman Saturday 07 June 2014

OPPONENTS of controversial plans to introduce a “state guardian” for every child in Scotland will step up their campaign with a major conference next week.

MSPs, academics, social work experts and medics will gather in Edinburgh prior to a £30,000 court battle aimed at derailing the Scottish Government proposals.

The conference speakers include journalist and author Allan Massie, Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, a GP and author, Tory MSP Liz Smith, Maggie Mellon, an independent social services consultant, as well as community paediatrician
Dr Jennifer Cunningham

bjsalba

@ali
I agree that Social Services are good, but they are overworked and in these austere times, funding is a problem and will be for some time.

The areas where the procedures were trialled experienced a reduction in the number of cases going to Social Services – because problems were caught early and action to remedy them taken.

Surely that is to the good?

Richard

Elaine
I am glad someone said it. I am pro-eu, pro-indy and would support most of The SNPs agenda. But not NP. Why does every child have to have a named person? Children at risk do clearly and they need all the resources focussed on them not diluted by having to monitor every single child. If you are worried about some slipping through the net, work on improving the identification process. As a teacher I am aware of my responsibility and the procedures for passing on care and welfare issues correctly. I am also aware that mistakes can be made by those outside the family which cause strain and stress to already struggling parents. Not something I am keen on to put it mildly.
I can’t wait till we get independence so we can debate these issues properly without the water being muddied by whether judges are English or not.

Legerwood

It is the UK Supreme Court not the English Supreme Court.

Secondly Scottish judges sit on it so that any cases coming before the Court from Scotland can be heard by judges with knowledge of Scot’s Law.

None of that in this case it any other is particularly contentious. The real issue, and one highlighted by Mr Salmond a few years ago, is that cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme court. That is not the case with cases heard in Nglish Appeal courts. Mr Salmond wanted the process changed so that Scittish Appeal courts were treated the same as England’s appeal courts. You can imagine the response he got.

As to the groups involved in this there has been a very noticeable absence in the media of any information on their background. Some of the individuals involved seem to be involved in home schooling organisations.

The verdict has by and large supported the legislation but pointed out minor changes that need to be made and that is in hand.

Using emotive language and criticism of the Court in anti- terms merely hands the opposition ammunition and deflects attention from what is fundamentally an endorsement of the legislation.

Bill

I’m planning to protest the Edinburgh meeting, who’s joining me?

Bill McLean

If it is correct that the UK Supreme Court can interfere with Scot’s, Irish and Welsh law then, in our case, it is a breach of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland! How many more times are they going to ignore the Treaty before we say “Enough! We are off!”. Sometime soon please!

Scott Borthwick

Heedtracker,

The line about totalitarian regimes in the judgment was not made in reference to the Scottish Government, or indeed the intent of the legislation. Look upon this as an object example of the dishonesty of the press.

gordoz

Its way beyond SNPBad, its more like GTF Scotland from the Zoomer Yoon crack troops.

Mon the Jockos

Jamie

Not right my comment was not posted, it was just as immature as your headline so should have been posted. But maybe that is just the totalitarian way????

Jamie

Elaine – I agree with you 100%.

gordoz

O/T

Think Mr Colliers assertions are coming apart somewhat.

(See FM comment on twitter about P & J today)

link to stv.tv

No media bias reporting ??

Artyhetty

Did we not get the measure of this legislation some time back? It is not the intrusive, nanny state ploy that it is being made out to be. We must protect vulnerable children and adults, far too many cases where people are not protected where they absolutely should be, in institutions, in the home sometimes etc.

The NP can also be a way of ensuring that children are properly catered for in school should they have Special educational needs, too often there is a huge struggle to access the right support.

I am sensing a new tactic among those who visit WoS with their pretendy touchy feely stance on independence, but but but you are all anti english attitude. Stop the patronising, belittling tactic whoever you are, commenters on here are very astute, know their stuff and have the measure of just exactly how the Westminster unionists and their branches in Scotland operate.

JamesCaithness

BBC reporting that the Supreme Court BLOCKED it. Trust the BBC.

Sinky

At Elaine says:

The Named Persons scheme is voluntary and parents are not forced to get involved but once there are serious problems with a child then other existing legislation takes effect and information can be shared ad nauseam.

Also it should be remembered that Labour voted for the Named Persons Act and only starting opposing it when Kezia read the Daily Mail and Daily Express headlines in the run up to the Scottish Elections in May.

heedtracker

Sorry, wrong thread.

heedtracker says:
28 July, 2016 at 12:44 pm
So much for centre left England and all its gory glory. Rancid The Graun btl aint what it used to be

ID17071882 2h ago

Ha haaa!

Infidel007 2h ago

SNPs “Big Brother” scheme hit for six, Justice prevails. This would have been the start of even more namby pampy Government.

dourscot 2h ago

The Scottish people 1, Big Brother 0

beyondparody 2h ago

Thank goodness for a bit of common sense. It would start as a benign project but would soon take on Orwellian Big Brother facets resulting in total State control. Surely the SNP would be better concentrating on improving the lot of children caught in abusive relationships and abject poverty.

ID081276 2h ago

Every child will now be assigned a specialist SNP activist.

Elaine Nibloe 2h ago

Herself will not be pleased.

ID17071882 2h ago

Thank goodness the courts have blocked these sinister plans from the SNP.

gjjwatson 2h ago

Well done. This was another attempt to dump an impossible responsibility on to public servants.
Ministers in recent years have gotten into the habit of offloading responsibilities to others. There was once a time when ministers accepted responsibility for stuff that happened on their watch. With the growth of Media witch hunts however they pass the hot potato to those beneath them.

tjhvaliants 2h ago

I’m glad. It assumed parents were not capable and turned professionals into Gestapo figured who would have created a lot of antagonism within families.

Trumbledon 2h ago

I can’t believe the nerve of the SNP, how dare they pass illegal legislation in contravention of their human rights obligations? 🙁

I H Pearson 2h ago

Another ridiculous idea from the SNP.
They range from the introduction of Gaelic road signs ( a mere £24 million) to Polis Scotland – a complete shambles at untold cost. Meanwhile child poverty in our cities is unchanged.

missymooabu 2h ago

I expect the most rabid separatists will see this as Westminster bullying us poor oppressed Scots – but surely this is another example of sturgeon’s ineptitude at governance.

I accept that the snp are easily the most popular political party and won on a landslide – so no point in calling for another election – but sturgeon’s position must be looking shaky! After standing side by side with the tories on europe (which she emphatically denied she would ever do) to losing this case after endless advice, she has to accept she’s personally not up to the job.

Hypatia01 2h ago

Given that amateurs occupy the Regional Assembly, one is not really surprised that Commend Centre at Holyrood have tried to over extend themselves.

Just a few cut n paste from Guardian comment section. Why Scots votes NO 2014 to be reigned over by our chums in the south etc…

Its not just that there are so many centre left Guardian tory nutters, like the one calling for another Scottish election, its that they’re not any different from the whole BBC led UKOK hackdom in Scotland.

Tam Jardine

I presume everyone against NP is also against health visitors making checks on newborn babies- they come round to visit and have a cup of tea, checking the child is being looked after and is healthy.

This is the same ‘state interference’ no2NP or whatever it is called is against.

All this shite amazes me- as if they think guidance teachers and headteachers have the time or inclination to interfere in family life when all is well.

The whole argument is a load of crap. Do they think the responsibility for keeping children safe is purely a responsibility for parents? Do they think before NP there was no state involvement or supervision? What are guidance teachers for? What are headteachers and social workers for? What are GPs for?

If children’s charities are for it, teachers are for it and the Scottish government is for it I am happy with that. Ridiculous- media driven hysteria against sensible tweaks to current system.

BBC reporting the scheme has been ‘dismissed’… wishful thinking.

Dinnatouch

Why do a pair of ‘Christian’ groups so strongly oppose protecting children?

Ian Brotherhood

When the hysteria has passed it’ll be interesting to hear Kezia Dugdale defend her shameful (and very well documented) role in sowing fear and confusion over this issue.

G

Ironic that the yoons want out of the ECHR.

Takeour blueback

@Elaine – The are some of us that see the NP exactly as it is intended, to provide a support network for Parents & Children and ensure that where possible children DO NOT escape through the net that is currently plaguing the Social Work processes (see previous numerous documented cases).

With the introduction of NP, the same people and probably process failures will still be there, this does not help that part of the process. What it does is to give human beings somewhere to turn to if they need assistance, or to highlight concerns (by the NP), for any factors that could negatively impact the wellbeing of a child.

I honestly couldnt care less about the Media articles that have turned this into an argument about SNPBad, I’m more interested in how the experts view this & to a (wo)man, they support the introduction of it. That’s good enough for me, if they reckon that a child’s voice will be heard and a process put in place to ensure some kind of action happens in the event of hearing these voices, then that’s a good thing.

As a parent of 4 also, I don’t have anything to worry about, I do get a grave feeling for hundreds (if not thousands) of kids in Scotland that fall through the protective net of the country!

In general, the BBC’s headline is a half-story an untruth and is Bias against the Scottish Government’s efforts to improve this country – let Andrew Collier review his STV article!

Dr Jim

The legislation will proceed not much later than planned without any problem once the amendments are made

This was never about a bad law by the opponents, this was purely and simply a headline grabbing political stunt which was initiated by people who originally voted for it and then saw a way of yet another SNP Baad story making headline to demonstrate the “Supremecy” of the UK which was always doomed to failure legally because the Scottish Government were prepared for it and that’s why John Swinney is completely relaxed about it

The only thing the opponents have succeeded in is prolonging the division they seek amongst that part of the population who either didn’t understand the Bill or who didn’t want to understand it in any shape or form on a simply ideological basis, so the argument can keep going not because the Tories have suddenly become child friendly humans or amid the ranks of Kezia’s members worries really were expressed over it and let’s face it the Lib Dems will jump in any direction if they think it’s a winner

In the next month this NOTHING ruling will be enough to get the desired column inches and a few telly slots to keep irellevant interested opponents relevant

skintybroko

So, religious organisations manage to get the legislation postponed for the time being, isn’t it religious organisations that are in the dock for failing youngsters in the first place and allowing their members to abuse children?

Am not fully aware of the overall NP Scheme but surely the idea of protection of children is a good thing? My kids are now adults so it doesn’t affect me directly so can only comment as an outsider.

Has it been completely blown out of proportion by the NO2NP and the media? Parents I have spoken to don’t see any issue with it, in direct contradiction to what Elaine says above – for any idea there those of the yes, no and maybe persuasions.

Unfortunately the Nos in this case don’t appear to have any alternative other than to scrap the idea and let the perverts have free reign until they are caught – that could be decades as previous experience tells us during which time many children will be scarred for life.

Lenny Hartley

Just send this to Manx Radio they broadcast the same snp bad mince as the yoon stations

I listen to Manx Radio on my internet Radio for at least 12 hours most days, I do not listen to BBC Radio or watch TV due to the misreporting of news regarding Scotland.
It pains me to say that Manx Radio is now broadcasting the same lies that we are subject to from the Mainstream Media in Scotland I don’t want to have to stop listening to Manx Radio as I really like the station .
However ,if their is any repeat of the downright lies broadcast by Manx Radio on the News Buletin at 1300 hrs on Thursday 26th July I will find another station to listen too. I always try to support your advertisers on my frequent visits to your island Nation. Obviously if I don’t listen to your station then these advertisers will miss out.
The News Item regarded the UK Supreme Court’s judgement on the Scottish Governments Named Policy Scheme where it was said that the Scheme was deemed illegal. The Fact is the Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”
They did say that some parts of the legislation were outwith the competence of the Scottish Government , these issues will be easily addressed. Your news item was misleading and a correction should be made in the next news broadcast.

Capella

So are Guidance Councils in schools to be suspended? They routinely share information about young people and their families amongst a range of people; teachers, social workers, youth workers, children’s reporter etc. Do those people objecting to NP not know that their information is widely shared now? What does the “Supreme Court” think about that?

Breeks

@Legerwood

Doesn’t matter if it’s UK Supreme Court, it’s the presumption it makes about where sovereignty lies and where it’s power comes from.

UK sovereignty is the coming together of two sovereign nations, but the sovereignty of one is not compatible with the sovereignty of the other. The two are fundamentally incompatible. English Sovereignty comes from God, through a monarch, into the monarch’s parliament, and through that parliament to ruling the people as subjects. That doesn’t work with Scotland. Scottish sovereignty does not come from God, but is popular sovereignty held by the people. Our Parliament serves us because we are sovereign. We are citizens, not subjects. Any “top down” sovereignty which treats us as subjects, whether that comes from English powers or legislation, Britsh powers or legislation, or even European powers or Legislation does not carry sovereign authority over Scots unless or until we Scots accept it.

Westminster is a fudge that largely ignores these irreconcileable differences in national sovereignty, and for practical expediency adopts the top down English method of Sovereignty, and has done so for 300 years. That is why we have HM’s government, HM’s Armed Forces, HMRC etc. That is fine for English Sovereignty, but it doesn’t however make it lawful under Scottish Sovereignty. Westminster is a complete fudge, and being a product of Westminster so is Holyrood being bestowed with powers from Westminster, and the U.K. Supreme Court having jurisdiction over Scottish sovereign people. All are similar “fudges” trying to affect a workable compromise around a thoroughly inflexible truth in order the “United Kingdom” to function.

The U.K. cannot function unless Scottish sovereign interests are buried behind lies, misrepresentations, and hidden under various carpets while English sovereignty is given the run of the place and recognised as dominant. Now that oath, which every Holyrood government swears to Her Maj, suddenly feels a Wee bit sinister doesn’t it? Terrible smell of fudge in the air.

For Scotland to consider itself a sovereign independent Nation, we do not need to change or rescind any Acts or Legal ordinances, we need only wise up, start to observe the older, prescient dominance of Scots law, which enshrines Scottish sovereignty with the Scottish people in perpetuity. Our 700 year old Delaration of Arbroath makes Scotland a republic, perhaps the first ever proper republic where sovereignty is popular and held by the people for all time.

It is not a prescriptive definition open to interpretation or limited consequence. We, the people of Scotland are either sovereign as defined by Scots Law, or non-sovereign as described by English Law which recognises sovereignty coming from God. We cannot be both, however hard Westminster and indeed Holyrood pretend that we can. We are one or the other, and no compromise can properly exist.

Tinto Chiel

Tam Jardine, Takeour blueback, Dr Jim: three excellent posts which summarise my thoughts pretty much, only better.

Heard Honest John Swinney on Pravdasound4 after the usual BBC hatchet job and I thought he was calm, rational and relaxed. He knows legislation will only be delayed for a short time and may be better for it.

I am uneasy about religious groups who seem to want to weaken child protection.

call me dave

I was angry when I heard on radio shortbread that the ‘Named Persons Bill’ had failed. Only two days consideration when some assault cases are taking months to be resolved eg: Rimmer.

But never fear, an hour later in the car I was assured by Reeval Alderson, well known stammerer for the said Auntie’s radio shortbread that the Bill had passed two of the three litmus tests and that Mr Swinney was going to tweak that third one asap! 🙂

John Beattie took the news well when Reeval told us and Swinney was on to confirm it. I am happier now, merely a detail it seems should be all in place eventually, but a year late. Aye right!

Grouse Beater

I enjoyed the hypocrisy of England’s ‘supreme court’ usurping Scottish Law that was meant to be sacrosanct, and doing it by invoking EU Human Rights legislation after England had unceremoniously dumped the EU.

I did not enjoy two English accented voices screaming to empty silence it is all a great victory for democracy.

Capella

@ Breeks – well said. The setting up of a “Supreme Court” by Blair deserves further scrutiny. How can it overrule the judgement of the Scottish Court of Session? If the SC is only there to judge whether the laws passed by the Scottish Government are within its competence, why is it adjudicating on this issue which is unquestionably within its competence.

Surely the SC should be struck down, if anything should.

Robert Peffers

@Habib Steele says: 28 July, 2016 at 10:17 am:

“Is not the Sureme Court hearing this case contrary to the Treaty & Act of Union?”

YES!

” … I do not agree with the Named Person scheme. If the various persons who have already some authority in the lives of children (teachers, health visitors, social workers etc.) deal with, or/and report any concerns that they have, to the appropriate authorities, then the Named person Act is unnecessary.

Tell that to wee Liam Fee, Habib – Oh! Wait! You can’t do that because the poor wee mite is dead. Not only did his child minder report the matter to, “The Appropriate Authorities”, but so did the staff at a local nursery and a totally independent member of the public. The, “Appropriate Authorities”, were fobbed off and they let Liam down by sheer inaction.

Those, “Appropriate Authorities”, did NOT take appropriate, immediate and proper action and a child died.

In any case the point when a Named Person would have acted passed when the matter came to the attention of the, “Appropriate Authorities”. That is the whole point of the act – to provide a ready path to the Appropriate Authorities, if these do not take Appropriate actions then it is the Appropriate Authorities that have failed – not the Named Person’s Act.

HandandShrimp

Reading the reaction from the Calvert chap I can see why the Court of Sessions talked about hyperbole. I fear he is going to be disappointed when the data sharing protocols are amended and the act comes into force.

The Greens and, albeit in a backhanded way, Labour will still support the act so it is going to go through. Roooth the Mooth is still banging her weird drum but, frankly, who cares?

I don’t understand Tavish’s call for Parliament to be recalled. He seems to think that the protocols will be tweaked by the minister and the act enforced in August as planned. I am not sure that it is the intent. If it is the intent, step away from Calvert as his head will likely explode with pent up hyperbole spraying up all over the place.

Almannysbunnet

From the SNP site;

Today the UK Supreme Court ruled on a failed bid to scrap the Named Person service.

Here’s what you need to know:

The Supreme Court states the aim of the legislation, in promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people, is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

The judgment ruled that the principle of providing a named person for every child does not breach human rights and is compatible with EU law.

The ruling requires greater clarity about the basis on which professionals supporting families – like health visitors and teachers – share and receive information in their named person role. The Scottish Government will start work on this immediately.

The Scottish Government pledged to continue to work with public services and children’s charities to ensure the roll out of the scheme.

The P&J, which now rivals the Express for zoomery, said something a bit different.

Robert Peffers

@Another Union Dividend says: 28 July, 2016 at 10:30 am:

“The Supreme Court decision is yet another reason for Independence.”

Amen to that.

The Supreme Court is totally and illegally breaching the terms of the Treaty of Union and thus is contrary to both the Kingdom of England’s Act of Union and the Kingdom of Scotland’s Act of Union.

Reason enough for ending the Treaty of Union.

Come on the Government of Scotland at Holyrood – time to assert yourselves as representatives of the Sovereign People of Scotland.

It is also time for those elected to represent the Sovereign People of Scotland in the bipartite Government of the United Kingdom they must uphold the terms of the Treaty of Union or that Treaty must end NOW.

Scottish Law is independent and the Supreme Court is thus an illegal Court.

Another Union Dividend

BBC Radio Shortbread 2pm headlines yet again distorting the Supreme Court ruling.

Named Persons is just one more example where the SNP has not been pro active enough in letting members know what is going on. Is the scheme voluntary or not?

The SNP web site should be regularly updated with simple facts on how well the Scottish Health Service is performing in comparison with RuK also with education and other policy areas that are regularly attacked by Yoon letter writers.

Good point made above regarding Cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme Court but that is not the case with cases heard in English Appeal courts. WHY?

I am always suspicious of the activities of right wing fundamentalist religious groupings.

Phil Robertson

alba
So does this then mean that the UK supreme court is def the highest legal authority in Scotland ie scots law subservient?

Skip_NC
Three judges from another country, along with two expats can overrule learned judges who live and work in Scotland?

The Supreme Court is, in law, is the highest civil court of appeal for Scotland. So Scots Law is neither “subservient” to it nor is it in “another country”. It is part of the Scottish legal system.

However its decision requires a tweaking of the legislation to make the act compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, observance of which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights which is in another country and, for the time being, part of our European umbrella.

The Scotland Act requires Scottish legisalation to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. IMHO that is not a bad thing.

Jack Murphy

The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.

“Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.

She added: “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children.

“We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality.”

The Hooray Henry Tories know best.
A disgrace.

Jack Murphy

Sorry—in my haste I omitted the source of the Hooray Henry Tory quotes.They are from the BBC Scotland on-line.

MJack

I think the named person act is a good thing, both my children have a named person and people without children of school age will find it hard to understand how beneficial it can be for some children and parents. I believe its mainly aimed at primary age children as a way of early intervention before a social worker needs to be involved sometime later and I trust the teachers at our school, if I didnt I wouldnt be sending my children every day.

Social workers only get involved when there is a crisis in a family, named person is there for help and advice way before a crisis builds up in a childs life. Along with GIRFEC, and SHANARRI schools are moving into a more holistic and modern way of educating our children and NP is a way of helping avoid situations getting worse or ignored.

Stoker

Case Law Archives
Named Person scheme incompatible with Article 8 ECHR
link to scottishlegal.com

Effijy

gordoz says:

28 July, 2016 at 12:51 pm
O/T

Think Mr Colliers assertions are coming apart somewhat.

(See FM comment on twitter about P & J today)

link to stv.tv

No media bias reporting ??

Thanks Gordoz,

Isn’t it strange that the BBC are losing license payers right, left, and centre in Scotland, and how they cannot answer complaints from Scots within the agreed time table, and why there is a petition against BBC Bias that is just about to have 90,000 signatures on it???

Good old millionaire owned Tory STV backing up their BUM chums.

UK Media has no credibility in Scotland, so just keep wasting your time,until you go bust and we go Independent.

Please sing your name to this petition!

link to you.38degrees.org.uk

Golfnut

Quite a few comments on Facebook quoting a part of the ruling, saying something about totalitarian states. This is being inferred as reference to the Scottish government.

Has this actually been said and in what context.

Camz

Anti-SNP media setting up a “SNP to steam roll NP legislation despite Supreme Court ruling” article.

They draw a line that will be crossed, so they can report that the SNP have crossed a line.

chossy

NP gives children a contact they can speak to. That is all.

ScottishPsyche

In all the hyperbole and histrionic headlines it seems clear the principle of the Act is not in question. As well as the ECHR questions it appears also to be an argument between what is devolved and reserved legislation. Clearly the Committee stages at Holyrood did not pick this up, nor did the civil servants.

Is this an argument for a neutral second chamber or body to examine Holyrood legislation? There may be more of these challenges as there is so much new legislation to cover.

The Tories and various religious groups appear to believe they have won a victory on the principles which is not the case. Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser’s reactions in particular have been appalling.

The breaking news reactions across the press and 24 Hour news channels were shocking but the Reporting Scotland bulletin was surprisingly sensible.

It will be interesting (!)to see tomorrows headlines.

Ronald

The NP scheme is not down and out by any means. The judgement only says a few amendments are needed to bring it in line with Article 8 of the ECHR. I have no doubt the SG. will do that and it will be implemented ASAP.

galamcennalath

“The Scottish Greens will continue to back the Named Person Scheme after a Supreme Court ruling found the aim of the legislation to be ‘unquestionably legitimate’, albeit with required changes to information-sharing aspects.”

So, a majority in parliament. A quick mod and everything carries on.

The right wing nutters can piss off back under the slim covered rock they crawled out from. Leave decent people to enact decent legislation.

link to greens.scot

Bill

When you think about it, this may set a dangerous precedent. What if any group with a reasonable sum of cash challenged every Act of Law in any parliament?

Just 250k to 500k and no more than 6 people?

This isn’t democracy.

Brian Doonthetoon

Hi Capella.

As far as I’m aware, prior to the creation of the UK Supreme Court, The House of Lords was the final court of appeal for Scottish civil cases.

Iain More

You took the words right out of mouth Rev.

The second I heard of this appalling decision by the Brit Nat Supreme Court the first thing that came into my head was the every kiddy fiddler in UKOK would be dancing in glee at it.

I can well imagine the headlines in the pro kiddy fiddling Brit Nat Press tomorrow. Tonight if not this afternoon they will be popping the champagne corks in the Brit Establishment at this ruling.

Screw the English Supreme Court. It will now be the case that every bit of legislation passed by Holyrood will now be dragged before the English Supreme Court! No doubt funded by dirty money?

Who funds the Christian Institute? Does anybody here know?

K1

‘The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.’

They didn’t throw ‘this Scheme’ out Jack. So Ruth Davidson is either thick or stupid…or both if this is her response to the delayed implementation of the NP act because of some amendments that need to strengthen the act.

It’s not a ‘victory’ for anyone involved in attempting to stop the NP going ahead. Why are they ‘acting’ as if it is? It’s beyond pathetic this sneering and sniping, their hatred of the SNP is at the core of all of this, it has nothing to do with the protection of children, it’s verging on hysteria and it’s certainly ‘projection’ when it comes to the ‘sinister’ labelling of this policy by this disparate bunch of paranoid time wasters.

As far as I can see this blatantly anti SNP group have formed a one issue arrow and it turns oot it wis jist a wee sparkler. The UK supreme court said: Aye a tweak here and there in line with EU laws but it’s essentially good policy.

The ‘victory’ will be common sense returning to our politics when we are independent.

Fred

This court was set up by Blair to replace appeals against the Court of Session going to the House of Lords. We have no shortage of judges versed in Scots law to judge appeals at home should this be deemed necessary. Traipsing down to London to consort with English judges is a piece of nonsense & jobs for the boys. A great pity our judges don’t just tell this kangaroo court to fuck-off!

Inkall

I just want to be sure I am 100% here.

All the named person law does is specifically name one of the myriad of people a kid has contact with (healthcare, teaching, etc.) and introduce them to the kid (and family) as someone they can talk to about problems they are having.

Other than that it is no different from if a kid went up to any random teacher or whatever and asked them for help, with the adult having to decide what to do with the information.

mike cassidy

Phil Robertson 2.16

The Scotland Act requires Scottish legislation to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. IMHO that is not a bad thing.

Agreed!

And that’s what the judgement is about.

The Scottish Government is clearly happy to comply –
and when they do, the legislation will be passed.

And then all the godbotherers and the spanners can…

Proud Cybernat

“Why do a pair of ‘Christian’ groups so strongly oppose protecting children?”

Because they want to brainwash kids with their own indoctrination. A true story. I took my young kids to visit a distant relative, a religious nut. My daughter found a kids book to read (about dinosaurs and stuff – she loved it at the time). The religious nut had only gone and scored through things like “Dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic Period 200 million years ago” with “God made the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago so this is a lie.”

I kid you not. Oh, and this holier than thou arse-piece is very vocal online with NO2NP. He’s a total religous nutcase. He even told me once that Scotland doesn’t need any immigrants, we should just ban abortions. My chin hit the fucking floor when he said that. These are the effing rockets that are holding this country back.

Proud Cybernat

Oh, and my kids haven’t been back since. Effing nutters.

Mike d

“Specific proposals about information sharing are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament ” in other words, not genetically programmed to make political decisions. Tell me something nawbags, how much more denigration can you take?.

Bob Mack

Today in Scotland there are over 17,000 children who are involved with Social Services for a number of reasons. They are only the ones have been discovered to require intervention. I would suggest that there is an equal number who have no intervention because they have not been identified as yet

That is the purpose of this legislation.To try and help identify those children at potential risk. I noted with incredulity one woman contributor on another forum talking about helping Syrian refugee children becoming exploited for abuse,whilst vehemently berating the Scottish government for that same aim in this country.

alba

Phil Robertson says:
The Supreme Court is, in law, is the highest civil court of appeal for Scotland. So Scots Law is neither “subservient” to it nor is it in “another country”. It is part of the Scottish legal system.

But does it not judge its cases using English law? If so, then is it not the case (pun not intended) that hundreds of years of legislation and traditions defined under Scots law can now be challenged and potentially over-ruled by a court using English Traditions?

Under Scots law, a scottish government cannot refuse the will of the scots people; referenda would be binding. Under English law, referenda could only ever be advisory – the difference being where sovereignty is legally seen to reside (people or parliament).

Legerwood

Bill

This case does not set a precedent. The Scottish Government has already had some of the Acts it has passed challenged in Court. An insurance company challenged one of their Acts, can’t remember which one, and the company lost. The whisky and drinks industry has challenged the SG’s minimum pricing legislation.

Acts by the UK gov have also been challenged. Fir example, the detention of people in their own homes when they have not been charged with anything or have served their sentence and been released and immediately put under house arrest. Mainly involved terrorists ir suspected ones. The UK Gov lost that one.

So it is not just the Scottish Gov that is taken to court.

Dr Jim

I’m not having a go at anybody’s beliefs here but, am I correct in understanding that one of these so called “Christian groups” ( I’m already suspicious of the terminology) who are part of the refuseniks to NP scheme are the same people who refuse blood transfusion as a life saving treatment or other medical interventions except when it suits them and if so, since when did the Media in any of it’s incarnations give any credence whatsoever to what fundimundilly mentalists think

I’d really hate to think this was even close to being the case, but if this is correct and between the political bias and media bias towards this scheme, if these are the people who have been used to form the basis of this case then this must be exposed as a horror story of epic proportions and an attempt by the opponents of the government to mislead Scottish parents as to the validity of this whole debacle by the Tories (But not them really)
because when folk talk about Christian groups their understanding is that
most Christian organisations fall between the accepted parameters of normal religious belief

Some don’t, and I’m wondering if the fear of not being PC is distorting the view of opinion here so nobody wants to sound like they’re demonising a religion, and that includes me
Just because I have no religion doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for those who do believe in something but if it’s these folk then, no

Maybe somebody has knowledge of the identity of the belief structure of the complainants and can expand because it doesn’t seem to be the RC Church or Church of Scotland or even any Muslim group and they’re the main representatives of religion in the country

So who are these “Christian groups”??

galamcennalath

Christian fundamentalists always seem entwined with ultra conservatives.

They worship their version of the past and somehow wish society were now like they believe it was. A mythical Dreamtime where morality was dictated by rules, hypocrisy, and dogma rather than simply caring for those around them. It was time of no gays and no marriages between people of different coloured skin. In spotlight, it was a time where wives could be beaten and children abused behind closed doors. The authorities would not intervene. Worse, in so many cases, it was those in positions of authority whom others were conditioned to respect, who were often perpetrators. Family values meant keeping women at home, pregnant and baking cookies all day.

Good old Deity Fearing days? My arse.

call me dave

O/T
In another court case:

Labour leadership: Corbyn ballot challenge rejected

link to archive.is

Cherry

This from the same “Christian Institute” these people are dangerous to a normal thinking human society. I can’t say any more as my blood pressure has gone thru the roof. Just have a wee read about their thoughts on gay adoption…..

link to christian.org.uk

Lenny Hartley

Another program on Manx Radio (woman’s hour sorta thing) taking the yoon spin that it has been scuppered, send them the link to the Wos aeticle “the football under the carpet” they read out my email and obviously had read the Wos aeticle coz they said obviously the people complaining about the NP act have not done their research – result.

K1

Aye Proud Cybernat, I have one in my family too…too much bible rhetoric and a pathological hatred of everything SNP. It’s terrifying their outlook and their ‘god given’ belief that they are ‘right’ about everything. Jesus wept, I think they want armageddon tae happen as it will confirm their worldview of ‘the sinners aw hae it comin’ tae them’…nothing worse than a ‘born again’ know it all wi inordinate amounts of hatred in their hearts. They certainly don’t dae irony or even see the inherent contradiction in their own hateful outlook wi the very beliefs they proclaim themselves the sole arbiters of. Love thy neighbour…aye right ‘as long as they’re no SNP’.

Sigh…some really screwed up mentalities at the core of this group of haters.

Proud Cybernat

Mike D: Tell me something nawbags, how much more denigration can you take?

Nawbag: Whit’s denigration? Ah jist read the Daily Recurd.

heedtracker

Bit more law info from rancid olde Graun. That crew and their ever more hideous comments section are really loving this. Must be the thrill of watching a British court display its power over the Scotland region they think they own.

link to archive.is

So from

“The court ruled that information-sharing provisions do not meet the Article 8 criterion of being “in accordance with the law”, and are therefore not within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and cannot be brought into force as they stand.”

to

“Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the court of session in Edinburgh, which said named persons did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”.

Its an extraordinarily different decision between Edinburgh and London.

Legerwood

Breeks and Capella

If you read my post again you will see that I said Nr Salmond had protested about the position the Scottish Courts found themselves in with regards to the UK Supreme Court.

He wanted the Scottish Courts to be in the same position as the English Courts vis a vis the Supreme Court.

There was a lot of publicity at the time but little support for Mr Salmond’s request. Probably happened about the time the Scotland bill was going through Parliament around 2009/10 or thereabouts.

I am sure the Treaty of Union was mentioned then but to little effect.

Les Wilson

The English Guy interviewed about this morning on Ukok BBCS, said
” people across Scotland will be so happy about this outcome today” ( they always find someone do they not ?)

Aye right.

Les Wilson

Having read what the judge said according the Christian whatsit,
there appears to be several comments that are anti SNP.
No names of directors or any names at all apart from one.

I would like to really know who these people are, their names and backgrounds, and their affiliations if any. Just to do a bit digging. It does not smell right somehow.

Grant

The legislative competence question has nothing to do with the Supreme Court overruling the Scottish Parliament. What’s been said, is that the Scottish Parliament dies not have the authority to pass a law that overrules EU data protection laws, which demand that sensitive information, like health information, cannot be shared without the consent of that person.

Named Person meant that the data would be automatically shared. Not only the information about the child, but also the health information of the parents and other family members.

K1

Yeah Cherry…this group is the ‘sinister’ manipulative organisation ‘projecting’ all their bile onto the SG. The insidious implication in that article is never explicitly stated, that’s the ‘way’ they maintain a ‘respectable’ front.

They don’t write: we are terrified these evil LGBTI people are converting our heterosexual children by being near them in a conventional family situation and we want to stop this happening cause they are evil dirty and corrupt people. Jesus is the one saviour and all these sinners are polluting our society.

Naw, they just insinuate that entire outlook by stating they were against the legislation that opened adoption up to gay couples.

They daren’t state out in public for all to see just how utterly authoritarian and dictatorial they are…they merely accuse others of what they deny within themselves…they are in direct competition with diversity, inclusiveness, social cohesion and kindness. Ergo hate the SG.

They need widely exposed for what they truly represent…as long as they have that word ‘Christian’ pinned above their house they think they are the ‘moral’ arbiters of good and bad in society. Actually they are no more than a front for those with some deeply disturbed notions and attitudes with regard how people live their life’s…all based on a book cobbled together by some of the most repressive epoch’s humanity has lived through. They want a return to a time that never was…in their fevered imaginations they think they are the conduits of Jesus’s word.

They are mostly frightened and deal with that fear by pointing the finger of blame at anyone or thing that reminds them they are not in control. They think if ‘they’ can control others then everything will be less ‘fearful’. Yes, exactly as it was when the churches burned people at the stake for having a dream, or hung drew and quartered them for being good at fighting against them.

Thankfully we no longer live in those times. The more exposure this group gets…the better informed people become about what groups like this truly represent.

It’s not love…that’s for sure.

clan rossy

hi guys

just watched the ending of an interview with one
of those christian group objectors on bbc .
my god he was making out as if s/gvt or scotland lived in
a nazi/fascist state and the presenters where loving it .

my god what a world we live in when they are giving nutters like them full scale attack on the tv against the scottish gvt .
and no one to challenge him on any of the claims he
was making .

jesus christ we need to get out of this union fast
the whole lot of the msm and british media make
me sick to the pits of my stomach

stewartb

heedtracker @ 4.12pm:

“Its an extraordinarily different decision between Edinburgh and London.”

I’m no lawyer but out of interest I’ve also gone back to re-read the summary of the earlier judgement on the NP case by the Court of Session in Scotland. I agree. On the face of it, the contrast in the findings could not be more stark.

Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?

Cherry

I have never in my life disrespected anyone’s beliefs….and I’m not going to start now…I will just leave this here…I will leave the link at the end.

“Governments exist to restrain evil

Governments are vital for civilisation. The rule of law is the basis of order and civilisation. Authorities are instituted by God for the good of everyone to restrain evil. The Bible teaches that governments are ordained by God to punish the wrongdoer and to commend those who do right (Romans 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:14).
The Bible plainly teaches that it is the duty of every Christian to submit to authority. This includes the payment of taxes: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established… This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Romans 13:1,6). “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14).
It is the duty of those in authority to punish those who do wrong. The punishment envisaged in the Bible clearly includes physical force. The Apostle Paul notes that a ruler “does not bear the sword for nothing. He is an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

link to christian.org.uk

Hopefully I’m not alone in my “inner thoughts” on this load of bullshit!

liz

The Daily Express has a headline stating ‘a kick in the teeth for Nicola Sturgeon’ re NP.

The comments on twitter below that are extremely disturbing, saying she needs 3 kicks etc.

For an actual newspaper to put that up is surely inciting violence.

Since Brexit the BritNat yoons are unbelievably hostile.

We must escape from this

Phil Robertson

alba
“But does it not judge its cases using English law? If so, then is it not the case (pun not intended) that hundreds of years of legislation and traditions defined under Scots law can now be challenged and potentially over-ruled by a court using English Traditions?”

In a word, no. It is the last court of appeal within the Scottish system for civil cases but not for criminal ones. It has a role in deciding issues related to the devolution acts and in ensuring that adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights is maintained.

“Under Scots law, a scottish government cannot refuse the will of the scots people; referenda would be binding. Under English law, referenda could only ever be advisory – the difference being where sovereignty is legally seen to reside (people or parliament).”

Political power is with the parliament. Scotland is what is known as a representative democracy, where every voter is involved in the election of representatives but it is those representatives who make the law.

Smallaxe

I wonder if Ruthless and and. Kezia are aware that this”Victory for the campaigners” are the same people who want the age of consent for homosexual people raised and are against gay marriage and gay people adopting children.

The Christian Institute has brought many ludicrous cases to court the vast majority of them failing!

Children need strong roots to help them grow Wings.Peace & Love to all of you and our Children & Grandchildren.

heedtracker

“Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?”

Its got that stench the Carmicheal Embro High Court decision reeked of. Law’s about interpretation at legislative levels like this.

CamenoB Brodie

“Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.

I don’t know how contempt of court works but…

The Supreme Court states the aim of the legislation, in promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and young people, is “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

heedtracker

Phil Robertson says:
28 July, 2016 at 5:00 pm
alba

As you’re laying down the law today Phil, can you answer this?

“Any lawyers out there who could explain what’s going on here? Why did the senior court in Scotland take such a different view – and get this so wrong? Or did it?”

Proud Cybernat

These are the religious zealots behind NO2NP.

‘The Christian Institute’:

Transsexuals are people who are biologically normal, but who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex they say they are ‘trapped in the wrong body’. And so a male-to-female transsexual will assume the identity of a woman. Often transsexuals undergo a ‘sex change’ operation. The Gender Recognition Bill provides many legal rights for transsexuals. Three fundamental premises lie behind the Bill: one, human psychological states rather than human bodily nature can determine a person ’s gender; two, it is right for a surgeon to deform a healthy body in the interests of a psychological disorder; and, three, the State should validate psychosocial confusions having precedence over unambiguous biological sex. Christians say these premises are wrong from biblical teaching, and also church tradition
and common sense reason. First, the Bible teaches that a human person is a mind-body whole. So the body determines personhood, not just the mind.

The first Christian heresy was to deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” ((1 John 4.2). Genesis 1:27 records: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Biblical Christians hold that ‘sex change ’ surgery desecrates a body made in the image of God. And the Bible teaches
that the State should validate what is right and not what is wrong (Romans 13.3).

Secondly, the Church of England’s 2003 discussion document also equated transsexualism with the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.

Both see the body as unimportant and the mind as all important. Gnosticism was strongly condemned by early Christian theologians such as Irenaeus (c 130 -200 AD) and Tertullian (c 155 -220 AD).

Thirdly, the philosopher, Sir Peter Strawson, also holds that a person must have “both states of consciousness
and corporeal characteristics… [so] the orthodox have wisely insisted on the resurrection of the body ”.

It is therefore wrong to determine a person ’s gender because their mind cannot accept their body. As the Bishop of Winchester has stated: “When the bill passes into law, for me the words woman and man will no longer mean what they have always meant and the government will have introduced marriage between two people of the same sex.”

Churches try to care for transsexuals and to speak to them about the Gospel. The Christian response to a transsexual, as with any other person, should be prayer, care and counsel as for any with psychological difficulties and where
necessary repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).”

From: link to christian.org.uk

Aye, prayer’ll fix it. Just like Jim fixed it.

gordoz

O/T

I see a certain Mr Kevin Hague is now writing ‘graphically’ for the Daily Reword.

Can someone clarify info relating to this self proclaimed ‘economic expert’s professional expertise / CV etc / proven track record in macro economics, since this news paper appears to be ‘passing him off’ as some level of proven economist.

Anybody happy to vouch for his disparaging commentary re Scottish Government and FM ?

Just details of his background / track record.

(No think tank info please the real deal of academic record / employment history etc) ??

Its not that I dont trust the MSM you know 🙂 Just asking like.

galamcennalath

Cherry says:

“Authorities are instituted by God”, “there is no authority except that which God has established”, “the authorities are God’s servants”

… and of course it is THEIR God they refer to. That is an extremely dangerous philosophy by which they justify THEIR exceptionalism and THEIR right to dictate to the rest of us.

“load of bullshit”, you are so right, but very nasty smelling stuff it is.

I am so glad I was brought up to think for myself. I know good and evil when I see it!

shiregirl

Apologies all – very O/T here, but just read that Anne Begg has been appointed to the NHS Grampian Board.

link to appointed-for-scotland.org

Macbeda

If prayer is so powerful how come we are still in this fecking Union.

Get on yer knees and pray FFS

Scot Finlayson

@liz

a lot of the comments are from the hacks at the rags,

they will say anything to get a response to their 500 word excrement,

nothing is as it seems in the media world,

they need to show/lie to their advertisers that people are actually reading their drivel.

This explains some of the practises,

link to en.wikipedia.org

Cherry

Someone correct me…I may not have this right as I’m not genetically programmed for all this stuff that my higher level masters who sit in a place far, far away.

This Christian Institute (a registered English charity) is saying that…all laws come down from GOD and as such we have all to be good little subjects and respect these laws…how does that work in Scotland as we don’t do “Devine Right of Kings” doesn’t my Sovereignty come into play here?

Smallaxe

@ Dr Jim,

As far as I know this group defines themselves as non denominational,this could mean anything from the Closed Brethren to Appalachian serpent handling Pastors! Peace.

Proud Cybernat

“Get on yer knees …”

And be like Fanny Alexander and Flipper? Nae chance. I’d much rather stand on my own two feet – so long as the big chief disnae strike me doon for a’ ma blaspheeming, o’course!

gordoz

O/T

On Mr Hague .. Daily Reword

Ohhh right; no actual track record on economic subject, related expertise or history just a man in the street opinion.

Recent 10yr background, mainly ‘garden furniture sales’ & ‘petfood’ online ????? WTF

Pretty sure the Reword didn’t mention any of that. Have since heard the BBC use this guy as well.

‘nough said.

galamcennalath

Peter McCulloch
@11:50

“The conference speakers include journalist and author Allan Massie, Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, a GP and author, Tory MSP Liz Smith, Maggie Mellon, an independent social services consultant, as well as community paediatrician”

From the BBC …

“Holyrood voted to approve the named persons system by 103 votes to nil in 2014, as part of the Children and Young People Act.”

… she didn’t oppose it in the correct place and at the correct time. So opposition afterward is just political opportunism, unless that 2014 Act was short of later detail. Wouldn’t think that’s how it works.

Capella

@ Legerwood – I saw your comment and am interested in what the reasons were for Alex Salmond objecting to the Supreme Court.
@ Brian Doonthetoon – I am so deeply cynical about anything Mr Blair did that it all goes in the same category as the Iraq War and stealing the 6000 mls of Scottish seas.

The House of Lords is a disgrace anyway being stuffed with English bishops and Lords. No democracy there. But you might argue that the Law Lords are there to judge on Scottish Parliament issues in the Supreme Court. Why then do they not judge on English Parliament (Westminster) issues?

Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?

No. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is the Court’s role to interpret the law and develop it where necessary, rather than formulate public policy.

Can the UKSC overrule Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in other parts of the UK?

The UKSC can hear ‘devolution issues’, which include questions about whether a Bill or Act of Parliament, or any provision of a Bill or Act of Parliament, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, a question whether an Order in Council, Assembly Measure, Act of the Assembly or Bill is within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly can also be referred to the UKSC.

link to supremecourt.uk

Smallaxe

@ Cherry,

The Christian Institute is a Charity registered in Scotland
SCO.39220.Peace.

Jacksg

OMG,

Newsreader on Stv just said Scottish government,s controversial NP legislation has been ruled ‘unlawful’ WTF is going on with our media.

Cherry

Wow just look at what the Christian Institute belief about bringing up children.

What we believe

Parents have a God-given authority over their children

In the Bible it is parents who have the responsibility for raising children. Parents have a God-given authority over their children.
The fifth commandment requires a child to honour its father and mother (Exodus 20:12). This was quoted by Jesus and by the Apostle Paul.
Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking. Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (eg Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.
Christians ought particularly to be concerned by any proposals which weaken the moral protections for children. Jesus gave a serious warning of judgment against those who cause children to sin (Matthew 18:6). This is an apt warning in these days when children have their innocence stolen from them.

Grouse Beater

Smallaxe: “I wonder if Ruthless and Kezia are aware that this”Victory for the campaigners” are the same people who want the age of consent for homosexual people raised and are against gay marriage and gay people adopting children.”

You’ll never get a BBC news bulletin to explain the character of their source material.

It’s headline stuff, two quick interviews, and one ‘expert’ correspondent repeating what was said in the opening headlines, but with lots of hand gestures.

mike cassidy

Scot Finlayson 5.16

Astroturfing on the Daily Express.

How ironic from the paper that thinks everything causes cancer.

link to archive.is

Cant wait to see the spanners’ reaction when this legislation is passed.

Spanners exploding like scanners! (film joke)

Valerie

@Elaine 11.29

What a load of hysterical shit you have posted. How dare you tell the sites owner he has it wrong? Did you read the link he supplied to Donna Babbingtons article? Someone willing to share their own story?

It’s only your view of NP that’s right, eh? In the face of widespread support for it.

A family of 4 is not a risk factor, the only criteria is a risk to the child, or a child asking for help.

Yes, there is form filling, and that’s because it can be used as part of the judicial process. Nothing to stop you taking your own notes, witness or lawyer.

That’s what everyone forgets in the frothing – everyone has recourse to the law if they think they have been targeted by a social worker.

Why would anyone invoke NP processes unless there is concern for the child.

If you are in the process, then there is some concern for a child’s welfare. Why do we constantly hear this monumental arrogance that parents know the best? No they fucking dont!

The vast majority of sexual assault on children is from within the family network, and plenty ignore and cover it up.

Oh, but don’t interfere with these ‘families’

Children that present no concern will never be in discussion, or have interaction with their NP.

Cherry

Sorry Smallaxe using my tablet and had only scrolled as far as the English charity number 🙂

Valerie

@Cherry

Well, quelle surprise, extreme God botherers, who believe in corporal punishment for children, leading the charge against NP.

And folk like Elaine on here, are aligning with them?

Good luck with that, when a child who has been beaten speaks out, and the God botherers are standing in the dock quoting scripture as their defence.

I feel physically sick that these religious nutters would expose children in this way. Thankfully the Scottish gov’t will stand up to these bullies.

Smallaxe

@ Cherry,

No apology necessary Cherry,we are all here to keep each other
informed.Peace.

@ Grouse Beater, I know what hand gestures I would give Them
my poetic friend.Peace

carjamtic

The UKOK Red/Blue Tory wannabe First Ministers of Scotland (and their cronies).

Despite their own, exaggerated, self confidence and the media’s, utterly bewildering, over-estimation of their abilities, it never ceases to amaze me, how far they can still slide.

The London Heidi’s (milking Scotland dry),the so called leaders of their Scottish parties (?), have NOT now, or ever, had Scotland or Scotland’s people, best interest at heart, they’re only in opposition to repeat the SNP Bad mantra, come hell or high water…whatever.

In their small minded, narrow attitude, towards the Scottish Parliament, to the people of Scotland and even despite their own ‘absolute superiority’ over us….the view held (mainly) by the MSM/BBC ‘gentleman hacks’….they are, in Scotland,(IMHO)….a critically endangered species.

Yes you could call in the WWF (not wrestling) to come to assist them, but no point, they would just get all horny again and start mounting other critically endangered species, straddling the Black Rhino’s for example ….before demonstrating, the 100%, deadly accuracy of their latest Tank’s, high velocity shells,before gouging out the horns, to use as leverage, in some corrupt, dodgy as fukc, behind closed doors, ‘trade deal’ and all in name of UKOK.

On the other hand, let’s distribute our pearls of wisdom to Washington, they desperately need some, politically speaking, the answers to some of their problems, maybe, still ‘blowin in the wind ’it is most definitely is not from a just visiting,‘ fool on the hill, they are simply, not that desperate.

“Thank god, you cannot bribe (?)Or twist (?), the honest yoon journalist and seeing what they will do for free (?), there is no occasion to”

BBC/MSM Yoons how low can you go?

Promoting incompetent politicians, as Bucking Bronco Riders or as Controllers of Large Smoking Guns, just proves that although personal engagement with animals or with weapons of mass destruction may ‘turn on’ the Red/Blue Tory cnuts in Westminster.…in Scotland it is likely to get you, buried in an avalanche of your own shit….to then, use vulnerable, innocent children in an attempt to score political points, only encourages us, to look the other way, as you then drown in it….to ignore your cries for help and we will.

Sadly, some ‘critically endangered’ species are just not worth the bother of saving….

Tick Tock

Juan P

Will need to take some time to read through the full judgement but it looks as though the court are content with the purpose of the legislation and just require some refinement around data sharing.

This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Public servants who want to share information in order to protect a child are often frustrated by a narrow and risk averse interpretation of current data protection legislation.

A ruling from the uksc on refined Scottish Government policy, once submitted, might in fact embolden civil servants to more readily share information for child protection purposes than they would have had changes not been sought by the uksc.

stewartb

Cherry @5.44pm

I’ve just been reading the same info on the Christian Institute: the bit about parental discipline of children that can be painful but that’s OK because it is clearly accepted in scripture, I find very telling in the NP context!

And there is much more information on what the Institute believes and the causes it supports in its 2015 Annual Review which is also a rich source on how its run, the funding it gets, who’s involved etc.(www.christian.org.uk/wpcontent/downloads/ar2015.pdf )

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14).”

On ‘harm reduction’ in public policy:

“….. harm reduction approaches have been extended to cover the whole population of young people rather than just those who are addicts. From a Christian perspective, harm reduction greases the tracks of sin. Instead of telling young people that actions inevitably have consequences, harm reduction presents as a paradise what is inherently dangerous.”

“Greases the tracks of sin” is quite a phrase! And:

“Harm reduction undermines the rule of law and parental authority. It leads young people into wrongdoing. It sends out the message that taking drugs or engaging in underage sex is acceptable. Increasing use of the harm reduction philosophy is leading to increasing failure. The only answer that the gurus of harm reduction can give to this is to say that there must be more use of harm reduction at ever younger ages.”

On homeschooling and against government regulation:

“In June 2014 we informed supporters in Northern Ireland that their local education boards were consulting on intrusive plans to regulate parents who educate their children at home. Under the proposals, parents who choose to remove their child from school would face detailed questioning and delays before being allowed to homeschool. Government officials would visit families to monitor their home education.”

On “emotional abuse” and against the apparently draconian House of Lords:

“In January 2014, the House of Lords considered a sweeping new law which could have criminalised parents for raising children according to their Christian beliefs.

The so-called ‘Cinderella law’ would have carried a maximum prison sentence of ten years for anyone who deliberately harmed a child’s “physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.”

Can’t have parents being held to account for abuse! I had never heard of this Cinderella law nor whether it has ever been enacted in England and Wales, but for context and in contrast, in a BBC News article on the same subject dated 14 March 2014 (link to bbc.co.uk ), one finds the following:

“The government said child cruelty was an abhorrent crime which should be punished. Social workers have a definition of child cruelty that they work on but because it is not written into law, this makes it difficult for the police to gather evidence. Currently social workers operate guidance in civil law that does recognise emotional abuse of children but police are limited because criminal law only recognises physical harm. Action for Children’s chief executive, Sir Tony Hawkhead, said the change would be a “monumental step forward for thousands of children”.”

heedtracker

Life goes on teanGB style. Wonder what all the farmers that had giant NO Thanks billboards on the roadside fields 2014 are up to these days. One even ploughed a giant NO into his fields on the dual carriage just before Dundee. Take back control but No doubt they’ll be all howling at SNP Scots gov. Trawlermen next.

link to archive.is

Scottish farmers face losing hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy after Brexit unless the UK government increases funding for Holyrood, a Scottish parliament committee has been told.

sinky

To be fair STVs coverage of Supreme Court was much worse than the BBCs

Truth

I’m ambivalent about named persons, principally because I haven’t researched it much at all.

What I’m not ambivalent about is the supposed Supreme Court. I said at the time it was set up that I did not recognise it with regard to Scots Law.

It has no right to interfere and consequently if I were the Scottish Government and judiciary, I would simply ignore their ruling. It does not apply in Scotland.

Legerwood

Capella @ 5.30 pm

Mr Salmond’s objections seemed to have arisen because of two criminal cases – Fraser’s appeal and the Cadder case both were appealed to the UK Supreme Court based on ECHR legislation which of course is incorporated into the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.

There was quite a stooshie in the papers about it at the time.

Details in this Guardian story which does include some useful information if you persevere with it. Sorry cannot archive

link to theguardian.com

Tackety Beets

Apologies , not read all posts

Elaine @ 11.29

I wonder , are you in the Highland area ? & have you shared your concerns with Bill Alexander @ THC as they have been operating it for years.
I recall a few months back, Bill has been very reassuring EVEN GMS that the NP concept is excellent and can save a lot of Public money going forward.

Valerie

@Heedtracker

£580 million per year in CAP payments to Scottish farmers.

Do you think the UK will.find that?

Valerie

The BBC have been a bloody disgrace, and tbh, they would probably keep.going with the same lies, were it not for social media hitting back.

They started with Armageddon headlines, and downgraded it, as the day went on, until tonight, it’s almost correct on the North British slot.

It’s more of a blip now.

The screaming rush to.condemn, crow and misrepresent is something to behold.

Ruth has started a petition, bloody disgrace.

ronnie anderson

You,s lot better get this room cleared up before Paula Rose arrives, the mess is terrible wie aw that hot cross bun throwing, an no even ah cup of tea in sight.Thank cod we dont hiv they religious meeting any mair,a whore n ah half of singing + sermon fur ah cup of tea an ah bun lol.

Capella

@ Legerwood – thanks for link will read with interest. I have always thought that the Treaty of Union specifically exempted the Scottish Legal system for all time. So I wonder how it was possible for Tony Blair to change that without breaking the terms of the treaty?

Here’s that link archived:
link to archive.is

Iain

What a state Scotland is in, we have the court of a foreign country that doesn’t even consider themselves European to rule over our laws.
We need to take the big decisions ourselves like normal countries do.
Scotland needs to grow a set, we are tired of yoon rule.
A referendum can’t come soon enough, we need to be free from this terrible union.

heedtracker

Valerie says:
28 July, 2016 at 6:54 pm
@Heedtracker

£580 million per year in CAP payments to Scottish farmers.

Do you think the UK will.find that?

No. They may have to though. Every farmer that voted NO is going to have a very hard time staying in business, even the loaded gentleman farmers like the Tayside multimillionaire that ploughed in that giant NO.

“Scotland’s population is about 8% of the UK total, but Scottish farmers receive 18% of the UK’s overall common agricultural policy (CAP) funding under the EU system, including 85% of less-favoured area payments. The industry has slumped in the last few years due to falling prices, increasing its heavy reliance on subsidies.”

Severin Carrell, for it is he and who’s organ gave Scotland this

link to wingsoverscotland.com

galamcennalath

OT Superb appraisal of the BBC by WGD

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

heedtracker

Its not even two years yet, so from

link to theguardian.com

“Scotland: yes campaign struggles to win over farming communities
Support for independence mainly seen in urban centres, but the yes campaign needs rural votes if it is to tip the balance”

to

“Scottish farmers face losing hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy after Brexit”

Should interesting watching tory BBC led media gimps spin this in to usual SNP bad stuff.

archive.is not happening right now:-(

Finlay

@Elaine 11:29

Let us assume all that you said about the inconvenience of a Named Persons system on regular non-abusive families to be true.

Are any of the these possible drawbacks of the Named Persons legislation on non-abusive families, in your opinion, too high a price for society to pay in return for the potential help a child could benefit from through the Named Persons legislation?

Croompenstein

@Valerie I think Ruth has got other things on her mind!!!!

link to twitter.com

I can hardly fucking wait…..

link to twitter.com

Dr Jim

If these “Christian Institute” people insist there’s no law above Gods law why did they go to court if they don’t recognise the Law which isn’t subject to God except by the lip service part of telling the truth which isn’t a requirement either,(affirmation)

The whole thing stinks of a Ruthie Tory plot using people who were happy to be used to further their own cause but in doing so if they’re exposed as the Nutters folk are saying they are they may well rue the day they agreed to have their organisation put under the microscope, which at some time will surely follow, plus the fact the spokesman for one of the “families” lives in Bonnybridge and that’s a small place to be outed as a zoomer if that’s what turns out to be the case

The Scottish government will win and all will be well but this will leave a bad taste in everybody’s mouth for a whole bunch of reasons, not least the jurisdiction of the “Supreme court” just for being supreme

Are our courts not equal enough (sigh) seems they were fine and dandy to deal with and take the blame for Lockerbie when the UK backed off at a million miles an hour telling the world Scots law takes precedence over English or any other law, but after Scotland daring to attempt asserting itself as a Nation, not up to the job of protecting our own kids apparrently, or indeed putting a price on cheap Booze

It says a lot about the Yoon assertions that we have the most powerful parliament in the known universe to infinity and beyond

I wonder what we’ll NOT be competent to undertake next, and when Ruthie gets annoyed does she once again run and tell her Big Brarr or her Ma-May oan us tae get us telt

Is that how a competent politician operates or just the greetin faced Milk Monitor

Most of us will be feeling a “how very dare you moment” about that and I’ll be agreeing with most of us

Grouse Beater

The right-wing Christian interferers in the democratic process take no cognicence some parents are incompetent.

And on a similar theme of English law usurping Scottish Law, I’ve just been asked by the BBC to approve copyright images I own seen in a reality show shot in Scotland.

The contract that takes away my rights is clear, “Subject to English Law and English Courts.”

Croompenstein

Independence Live from East Kilbride on now…

link to livestream.com

Cherry

@Valerie and Stewartb

Agree 100% with everything you’ve both written.

IMO it’s a Witch hunt and the only way to fight that is with turning it back at them. This “religious” group is looking more like a religious sect than any force of good. I’m downloading all there info just in case they decide to deny their own words.

Found it difficult to read most of the crap as it just became mind numbing mumbo jumbo. I can’t believe their are folks walking among us with these views! The media harp on daily about people being indoctrinated into DAESH…they really need to look closer to home for people peddling distorted,swivel eyed religious fanaticism!

We have to continue sifting thru the crap these guys are spouting, coz somewhere in one of their articles is a little gem of a quote that will expose their grubby”holy” existence.

Marcia

If this legislation helps at least one child I’m for it. The scheme in the Highlands seems to be working.

Legerwood

Capella @ 7.05 pm

From a very swift reading of the piece in the Guardian it seems to be that cases are referred to the UK Supreme Court because the ECHR has been incorporated into Scots law. The cases that go to the Supreme Court seem to be putting forward arguments in support of their case saying that the decision of the Scottish Courts breaches ECHR legislation in some way.

But it is a bit of a minefield and from the article it would appear that the legal profession was split on the issue as well with some supporting Mr Salmond and others not.

Graeme

If it was established beyond any doubt that the BBC was biased against the SNP/Scottish Government or the independence movement in general could The Scottish government proclaim a non prosecution rule for non payment of the licence fee kinda like they did with the bedroom tax

Graeme

CameronB Brodie

I had quite a long relationship with the daughter of Baptist missionaries. No, honest. Stop laughing. She was a rebel. Nudge, nudge. 😉

I also briefly shared a flat with a young Baptist, who was of the 6,000 year old earth variety. I naturally felt compelled to show him that morality is not the unique possession of the religious and that moral absolutism is rarely ethical.

He was mature enough to thank me for encouraging him to re-think his values and informed me he now felt much stronger in his faith as a result.

What can you say, except people of his outlook should have no place in shaping public policy.

Re. Respect. Fuck that. I’ll tolerate shit but I won’t respect that which I believe to be in error. Don’t tell me we need another Reformation?

Breeks

I hear you Legerwood @4:15 pm, and I’m not disputing a thing, but the point I am making is that Scots Law takes precedence, and even if you ignore Scots Law, it doesn’t change the fact it is THE law, and it trumps all subsequent laws. It doesn’t go away. That is why the Declaration of Arbroath is celebrated as an UNESCO World Memory after 700 years because what it says is so utterly profound for Scotland, and it remains a document of truly global significance.

It isn’t an argument you can win or lose, there is no argument to make, there is no room for any fudge or compromise. Sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland in perpetuity, and neither Westminster, not their Supreme Court has any jurisdiction to interfere with a sovereign people and their elected representatives.

Supposing our Scottish Government caved in, and our Scottish judges caved in, and our Historians and Constitutional experts caved in and all swore allegiance and fealty to Westminster, it would not, it could not, un-write the Declaration of Arbroath which created Scotland’s popular sovereignty in perpetuity. 14th Century Scotland “nationalised” sovereignty, and it’s been ours ever since.

If Westminster, and even Holyrood refuses to acknowledge the ascendency of Scottish Law as it defines our sovereignty, then we should be taking our case to Europe or more probably the UN and having their constitutional lawyers clarify the situation. This will, I promise you, affirm Scotland’s popular sovereignty, as it is defined in Scots law. Confirmed in no small part other than because the UK Supreme Court has already acknowledged that very thing in the 2011 AXA case. Be aware too, that the UN ruling will not confer our sovereignty upon us. It is not theirs to confer. The point of the exercise is to have the UN recognise our legal sovereignty; not to make it legal, but to have it recognised as such. We don’t even need a UDI.

We have the law, Scots law, firmly on our side. What we seem to lack are lawyers with sufficient vertibrae to hold their ground and defend our interests, and a Scottish Government which demands that they do.

It changes everything. It would have / should have changed everything back in 2014. The referendum would not have been couched as a referendum to end the UK, but a legally independent Sovereign Scotland holding a referendum to create a political Union with England.

This whole reverberating cathedral of a debate boils down to one defining factor; whether the 1707 Act of Union is/was competent, and did, as the English and Unionist Scots would maintain, extinguish both Kingdoms of Scotland and England, or, as we Independentists maintain, it never was a competent article because Scottish Sovereignty was not, and could not be, removed from Scotland’s sovereign people to be bargained away in the manner it ostensibly was.

It isn’t a matter of interpretation. Those Scots who signed up to the Act of Union were signing away something which wasn’t theirs to sign away. They were not competent signatories. The contract is void.

It is a thoroughly well established concept. Minors are not competent to sign a contract. Lunatics are not competent to sign a contract. Bankrupts, prisoners, people under duress are all not competent to enter into a contract, and if they try and even succeed, the contract is void – no argument about it. In 1707 the Scottish Lords signed the Act of Union to remove sovereignty from Scotland and place that sovereignty at the disposal of the United Kingdom parliament. They were not competent to do so, because Scotland’s sovereignty was never theirs to dispose of. The Act of Union should properly be considered as void.

That isn’t the end of the matter, because we know this, and have known it for some time. Because we know the Act is void, but continue to conduct our affairs as if it wasn’t void, then by doing so we may be compromising our position and damages suffered during this period of injustice. In effect we contribute to our own injury by continuing to engage with something which we know injures us.

Our Scottish Government should stand firm and defend Scottish Law and the sovereign independence of Scotland’s people as defined by that law. If our Unionist majority doesn’t like it, then let them organise their own referendum to form a political Union with England, only this time I might suggest a somewhat less binding Act of Union which is NOT based upon a rudimentary error of competence in the signatories, and which doesn’t touch issues of sovereignty with a barge pole.

All this talk of democracy and referenda is academic waffle. Legally, Scotland is an independent sovereign country. Constitutionally, Scotland is an independent sovereign country. Our monumental struggle to win our Independence from Westminster is no great battle or tumultuous struggle against an oppressor. It is a rather unimpressive matter, and frankly a potentially embarrassing matter of reading the small print, – but the consequences are well and truly immense. The 1707 Act of Union isn’t worth the paper or parchment it’s written on.

By all means, let’s have a thoroughly democratic referendum, wave our YES flags and raise the country’s constitutional awareness, but let’s not kid ourselves it is anything other than a public relations exercise, because win, lose, or draw, our sovereignty has been right here with us all along.

jimnarlene

Apologies if this has been posted previously, but NP legislation can proceed…
comment image

Capella

@ Legerwood – from the FAQ section of the Supreme Court website they say they do not hear appeals from the Scottish Criminal Justice system. So it looks as though Alex Salmond won his case over that.

Nevertheless, why should it be necessary to have a court overruling the Court of Session? Do they think Scottish judges are incompetent to apply ECHR law?

Looks like undue interference in the Scottish legal system to me.

CameronB Brodie

Ruth has started a petition, bloody disgrace.

How does contempt of court work?

Ian Brotherhood

O/T – please come to off-topic if you’re planning to attend Glasgow rally on Saturday and haven’t been with the WOS crowd before.

(We want to nail a time to get a family snap done…)

link to wingsoverscotland.com

Fred

Fred’s never met a Christian but he has met a lot who thought they were!

Effijy

galamcennalath says:
28 July, 2016 at 7:12 pm
OT Superb appraisal of the BBC by WGD

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

Thanks! Great Article on the BBC.

Please sign the petition below against Blatant BBC Bias:-
89,775 Scots have already signed. 90,000, here we come!

link to you.38degrees.org.uk

Kennedy

Is the Orange Order a Christian group?

Paula Rose

ronnie anderson please control this – you’re in charge tonight.

stewartb

My last post on this subject, at least for now, but the subject may be of wider interest to some already in or contemplating marriage.

See this on the Christian Institute’s in principle opposition to same sex marriage (Source: 2011 Briefing Paper on “Plans to legalise homosexual marriage in Scotland” – link to christian.org.uk )

“The definition of marriage, as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life, is not arbitrary. It didn’t just appear out of thin air. Nor is it a recent development or a definition peculiar to our own society. It is a definition which can be seen across all manner of human cultures. It is a definition which stretches back in time through all of human history. It is a definition which accords with nature, with the complementary characteristics of men and women and with the safe and secure rearing of children. This is what Christians believe.”

The Institute also states:

“No matter what the law says, true marriage will always be between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life. Law cannot change reality, and law cannot change true marriage.”

Ian Brotherhood

It’s not often a subject arises which is difficult to comment on, but this whole thing is just sickening.

If we’ve to counter such faux outrage and histrionics over something so basic, what lies ahead?

Crash Test Dummies, ‘Mmm mmm mmm mmm’ –

link to youtube.com

Valerie

Here’s Ruth and her petition, just in case anyone doubts she would use this issue in such a barrel scraping way, or exploit child protection issues.

Sickening and stomach churning. I feel absolute disgust for her.

Bear in mind, two courts have already considered this NP legislation, it’s been in pilot for years, with reported benefits, and many large and respected charities support this.

link to twitter.com

Ian Brotherhood

P.S.
What is this chat of a Davidson petition?

Fran

Oh the irony, ruling on EU law when we are getting taken out of the EU

Ian Brotherhood

@Valerie –

Our comments overlapped there…

Will have a look at it now, cheers.

🙂

Clydebuilt

They are trying to resurrect SLAB over at Newsnet.scot….. “Like them or loath them Scotland Needs Labour for now” …… Would be good for some wingers to pop over and contribute to the debate…..

Kennedy

Does Steven Crabb DWP and PM wannabe have anything to do with this Christian group?

RogueCoder

Sorry for the off-topic folks, but thought you’d want to have a look at this.

You wanted a new Scottish media? Here it is.
link to indiegogo.com

Ian Brotherhood

@Valerie –

I clicked link, but couldn’t find page showing how many have signed.

She’s taking serious flak via Twitter anyway, so here’s hoping the whole thing falls flat on its arse.

Phronesis

The Scottish legislation was approved by 103 votes to nil by MSPs when it formed part of the Children and Young People Act in 2014. This was after extensive consultation with many child welfare organisations, statutory services- faith groups included. This legislation is supporting a plethora of policies where achieving maximum levels of child well-being is a SG priority for all children in Scotland- presumably that is why all 103 MSPs supported it.

The Supreme Court will surely have a similar view of current thinking in England which uncannily echoes the NP in various child welfare concerns but has not as yet legislated for this.

‘The Teachers’ Standards 2012 state that teachers, including head teachers, should safeguard children’s wellbeing and maintain public trust in the teaching profession as part of their professional duties
Each school and college should have a designated safeguarding lead who will provide support to staff members to carry out their safeguarding duties and who will liaise closely with other services such as children’s social care’

link to gov.uk

A cross party group at WM thinks that this is a good idea;

‘We also want to see a ‘nominated person’- a sort of guardian who will take an interest in them – to be appointed for children who go missing from home and who may not be on the children’s services radar…

Children who go missing from home should have a ‘nominated person’ appointed to ensure that they are properly safeguarded’ .

link to childrenssociety.org.uk

The UK government recently commissioned the Wood Report on the function of Local Safeguarding Children Boards and found that there needs to be fundamental reform of this system (which applies to England. England and Scotland have always legislated separately in child welfare matters e.g the Children’s Panel is a Scottish entity, GIRFEC is a devolved policy)

‘The agencies are those relating to health, the police and local government. We need to ensure that at national and local level these three areas are at one in agreeing how to hold to account one another and the services they deliver individually and collectively. Some have pointed to the broad Corporate Parenting duty on a local authority as the type of model to apply to the three key agencies in respect of their role in protecting children’

Children themselves have also voiced their own concerns about lack of clarity in knowing who will help them

‘Many children complain to my office about poor co-ordination between agencies – especially when things have gone wrong… being unclear as to whom to talk to or report. This may also mean being unclear who will be the most responsive to their needs (children have often reported good and bad responses from various agencies suggesting that a coherent response has not been embedded across agencies themselves)’

link to gov.uk

The WM government response to the Wood Report;

‘We will introduce a stronger but more flexible statutory framework that will support local partners to work together more effectively to protect and safeguard children and young people, embedding improved multi-agency behaviours and practices. This framework will set out clear requirements for the key local partners, while allowing them freedom to determine how they organise themselves to meet those requirements and improve outcomes for children locally…

Place a new requirement on three key partners, namely local authorities, the police and the health service, to make arrangements for working together in a local area. This would not change the existing statutory functions or duties on any of the agencies individually, but it will require more robust and much clearer arrangements to promote effective joint working, in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’

link to gov.uk

And of course we should consider why knowing what information should be shared and with whom is a pivotal factor in protecting very vulnerable children (and is a responsibility of the state)

‘Effective sharing of information between professionals and local agencies is essential for effective identification, assessment and service provision…

Early sharing of information is the key to providing effective early help where there are emerging problems. At the other end of the continuum, sharing information can be essential to put in place effective child protection services. Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) have shown how poor information sharing has contributed to the deaths or serious injuries of children…

Local agencies should have in place effective ways to identify emerging problems and potential unmet needs for individual children and families. This requires all professionals, including those in universal services and those providing services to adults with children, to understand their role in identifying emerging problems and to share information with other professionals to support early identification and assessment’

link to gov.uk

Meindevon

Croompenstein…

Is that Ruth Davidson tweet for real? Can you imagine what the Tories and Labour would have said about NS making some Carry On type comment about a man ‘fingering a whisky glass’? Except she wouldn’t, would she? She has much too much decorum to do something so trashy. That might come back to bite Ms Davidson if she ever gets to put herself forward for a high heid yin position.

Also not sure what these right of centre Christian folk at the Supreme Court would make of it?

And as someone pointed out above, they aren’t too keen on gay marriage or gay anything. So that comment no doubt made one or two of them feel quite faint!

Graeme Doig

I see a lot of folk getting hot under the collar about some Christian beliefs.

I would hope an independent Scotland would have the same tolerance of Christians as they would of Muslims who have very similar beliefs on homosexuality and abortion.

Robert Peffers

@Another Union Dividend says: 28 July, 2016 at 2:13 pm:

“BBC Radio Shortbread 2pm headlines yet again distorting the Supreme Court ruling.

Yes! You are correct.

” … Named Persons is just one more example where the SNP has not been pro active enough in letting members know what is going on. Is the scheme voluntary or not?

Arrgh! And just how do you propose the SG should be more proactive? They drew-up and got the act passed by an overwhelming majority of the MSPs. They published the facts on the Holyrood Parliament website and on the SNP’s website.

The Westminster Establishment then went into full overdrive, the unionist parties sent out their orders to their branch offices in Scotland that they were, in spite of NOT opposing the act at Holyrood, (only the Tories abstained while the rest voted for the act), then the unionist propaganda wing, led of course by the BBC, have brayed, “SNP BAAD!”, ever since while several, deeply suspect, so called, “Christian”, organisations banded together to oppose the act.

Now I’m not an anti-Christian, per se, but I note the majority of child abuse scandals throughout my entire lifetime have usually involved nominally, “Christian”, organisations. Be they schools, children’s homes or priests, ministers, Padres or leaders of such as schools, The Boy Scouts, Boy’s Brigade, Cadet Corps, Orphanages or whatever.

Now do not attempt to make me out to be blaming Christianity. That is not my point. The point is these religious organs have, through the years, been the very obvious organisations that paedophiles and abusers will join in order to gain access to vulnerable children.

Many of these children, for example orphaned children, have no parents or other family to support them. Who then are these vulnerable ones to turn to when those who are supposedly stand-ins for parents are the abusers?

” … The SNP web site should be regularly updated with simple facts on how well the Scottish Health Service is performing in comparison with RuK also with education and other policy areas that are regularly attacked by Yoon letter writers.”

It is but who, except for their own membership, reads the SNP website? For that matter who reads the Scottish Government website?

” … Good point made above regarding Cases heard in Scotland by the Highest Court in Scotland can be appealed to the Supreme Court but that is not the case with cases heard in English Appeal courts. WHY?”

Do you actually really need to ask? This so called United Kingdom is legally a bi-partite union of two equally sovereign KINGDOMS but Westminster commissioned and published a paper by what they claimed to be leading experts that claims otherwise.

This was made very, very obvious when David Mundell, (then the Secretary of State for Scotland), announced to the World, in front of TV cameras, “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as The United Kingdom”.

Does that sound like Westminster regards itself as a union of two equally sovereign kingdoms to you? Add to that this illegal Supreme Court and the Westminster adoption of the EVEL legislation and any person in Scotland who still supports the Union is without doubt, by their own acceptance of the above facts, no longer a Scot in any real sense of the term.

They are, to all intents and purposes, just what the then Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, described they are Unionists and that, according to the present Westminster Government, members of the union they claim was the Kingdom of England renamed by the Treaty of Union as The United Kingdom after Scotland was extinguished.

I am always suspicious of the activities of right wing fundamentalist religious groupings.

Peter Clive

A great day for disingenuous yoon doublethink:

link to moflomojo.blogspot.com

galamcennalath

Valerie says:

“Here’s Ruth and her petition”

Aye, contrast that to Nicola’s petition about Trident.

Clearly, morality is in the eye of the beholder. I know who I stand behind.

yesindyref2

Ah, thanks to the article and comments about “42 days” etc, it’s all a lot clearer – MSM lies again.

HandandShrimp

I see the BBC site headline is

Named person ‘will still be introduced’

I think the initial buzz on the data protection thing is already losing its sparkle for the SNPbad types. It isn’t that big a deal for the legislators to rewrite and enact. John Swinney is still talking about it being introduced in the Autumn session.

Phydaux

Another Named Person stooshie and lots of heartfelt comments and views.I have never understood the need for every child to have a NP.Most parents do not harm or abuse their children.The court ruling concerned itself with a family’s right to privacy and that parents have no say in whether or not to have a NP. The legislation on data protection and human rights states that, unless a child is deemed to be in need of protection, information can’t be shared between agencies without the staff running the risk of contravening this legislation.

This has 2 consequences.Either it deters information sharing or it artificially increases concerns.The Government must address this, as confirmed by John Swinney.

Previous Child Abuse Inquiries have shown that child victims of abuse were all known to some or other parts of the systems in place.The greatest failures lay with managers and senior members of local councils.Inept and ineffective management are persistent themes, as well as underfunding, inadequate staffing levels and poorly led.Front line workers, usually social workers, are faced with a tough and challenging job…dealing with adults who behave in deviant and menacing ways.They require professional skills and personal qualities, not least of which are persistence and courage.

The answer lies in doing relatively straightforward things well, to quote Lord Laming, Chairman of the Victoria Climbie Inquiry.

Child abuse victims of almost unimaginable cruelty is difficult for everybody to deal with.Those who work in child protection deserve our understanding and support.Those who play political football with complex and difficult issues around child protection and who have nothing constructive to contribute are named and shamed.

Always thought that ” Named Person ” was an ill-thought out and somewhat stigmatising choice of words.Keyworker was commonly used previously and seems more neutral and apt.

Barpolisher

Some information on the Christian Institute from the Charity Commission website.

link to apps.charitycommission.gov.uk

call me dave

O/T

Hinkley Point in doubt! Costs questioned.

link to archive.is

Robert J. Sutherland

Personally, I think this is one area where the usual politicking (whether conventional or pro/anti-indy) should take a respectful back seat. This is about the well-being of our kids, and should not become a political football. For anyone, for any reason.

There was already some legitimate concern about some aspects of the legislation, so the fact that the jurists of the SC have identified one specific issue of concern should surely be positive, no?

John Swinney has already indicated a willingness to look and learn, so all credit to him. If improved child protection legislation that commands more widespread public support is the result, is that not to be welcomed? (At least by everyone who doesn’t have some axe of their own to grind.)

This is for our kids, FGS. Let’s get it as right as we possibly can and move on.

Proud Cybernat

@ Graham Doig

“I would hope an independent Scotland would have the same tolerance of Christians as they would of Muslims who have very similar beliefs on homosexuality and abortion.”

They’re entitled to their beliefs. No one denies that. What they are NOT entitled to, however, is to foist their beliefs on the majority. There’s a process for that – it’s called the ballot box. The Christian Party got stuffed at every election they have participated in. Democracy in action. Th problem is that when they get stuffed by the people, they extole a higher power onto their side. Well, as far as I’m aware, unless god appears in person, s/he doesn’t get a vote.

yesindyref2

To clear up a misconception, the UK does NOT exit the ECHR with Brexit, it exits from the ECJ – The European Court of Justice which is purely an EU thing.

The European Court of Human Rights is the court set up under the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed up to by 47 European countries including the UK which signed up in 1950. I repeat – 1950. Way before the UK joined the EU. When the UK exits the EU it will still be a signatory to the Convention (ECHR) and therefore still subject to the Court (ECHR), unless it specifically withdraws from the ECHR – which it is unlikely to do. It’s the ECJ and the EU Human Rights including the EU four freedoms which the UK has problems with.

@Elaine
I read the legislation itself and it does not make it clear that it’s voluntary, so you’re not the only one with concerns. Unfortunately this has been turned into a silly issue – if you express any doubts about NP then you obviously hate the SNP and are a serial child abuser. There seems to be no room for sensible discussion. Ah well.

Ian Brotherhood

Is Ruth Davidson’s ‘petition’ a stunt to get folk clicking the Scottish Tories’ website?

Where is the page accepting signatures?

yesindyref2

Add to above, the UK has problems with workers rights protected under the EU – they’re not part of the ECHR as far as I know.

Robert Peffers

@Jack Murphy says: 28 July, 2016 at 2:22 pm:

“The Tories in Scotland seem delighted with the UK Supreme Court throwing this Scheme out.”

In the first place the Supreme Court is totally illegal as the Treaty of Union, states that Scots law will be independent forever. As the Treaty of Union is a bi-partite union that means the Treaty of Union is broken.

In the second place the Supreme Court of England did NOT throw the act out. They said that it needed adjustment to comply with EU laws.

“Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said the ruling was “important” and “a victory for campaigners” against “illiberal, invasive and deeply flawed” legislation.”

No doubt Davidson did say that but that doesn’t make it the truth. Davidson is well known for spouting loads of utter lies.

“She added: “Simply put, the SNP does not know better than parents when it comes to raising their children.

“We have consistently argued against the named person legislation on grounds of principle and practicality.”

Indeed the Tories have argued about almost everything the Scottish Government has ever done but that doesn’t make them right. Davidson needs to come down to Earth and get it through her thick head that the sovereign people of Scotland do indeed know best – which is why the SNP are the Scottish Government and the Tories are the opposition and that they do not exactly have a mandate to do anything whatsoever with the strength of their representation at Westminster.

“The Hooray Henry Tories know best.
A disgrace.”

Nah! They just think they know best but the voters in Scotland obviously know better and reject them at as the government of Scotland and it was only by dirty tactics that one lone Tory was elected to Westminster .

Proud Cybernat

As far as I’m aware–and I’ve known to be wrong on more than one occasion–the Supreme Court is actually just a fancy name given to a bunch of House of Lords Law Lords who are simply doing what they have always done but under a new name ‘The Supreme Court’ (because the EU apparently didn’t like the House of Lords being too close to the judiciary) or something along those lines. And, as far as I’m aware, the Scot, Lord Hope, is presently the head-honcho of the SC. I think the whole SC usurping Scots Law is a bit of a red herring. But I could be wrong. Again.

Still Positive.

I posted on the last thread re named Person.

All teachers act in ‘loco parentis’ – in the place of parents and it is incumbent to all of them to flag up any concerns about a pupil.

However, in my experience as a teacher in Glasgow, most concerns were about a family illness or bereavement where pupils were worried.

These things happen to most families from time to time.

When my mother-in-law died I went to my son’s secondary school to pick him up as I didn’t want him to find out from distant relations who were also pupils. While waiting at the office for him his Guidance Teacher came by and asked if everything was OK. I explained what had happened and she said she would ‘keep an eye on him’. I also mentioned his cousin who was not at school that day.

In the event my son coped well but as a mum I was reassured that the school would ‘make allowances’ if needed.

That, in essence, is what most of the NP legislation is about.

Graeme Doig

Proud Cybernat

No argument from me on that count but as a Christian I notice the rhetoric is always ramped up against Christianity as a whole on occasions like this in a way that doesn’t happen with Islam.

Is it fear of being non PC that seems to inhibit criticism of Islam in a way that doesn’t seem to affect Christianity?

BTW

I have absolutely nothing against NP.

Capella

Bad news Phydaux, UK subjects have no right to privacy and never have had. That is why the spooks can hapily capture all your online activity, rake through your bins and listen to your phone calls with abandon.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution that enshrines a right to privacy for individuals and there is no common law that provides for a general right to privacy.

Only the ECHR protects our privacy.
link to loc.gov