Court of parental opinion will ultimately reign supreme

The triumvirate (‘three stooges’) judgement on the appeal by NO2NP campaigners to the Inner House of the Scottish Court of Session came as no great surprise to any of us this week, because this important case has always been expected to go to the higher, more authoritative Supreme Court in London, and in all likelihood on to Europe. Bring it on, say campaigners, whose low opinion of the Scottish judiciary is surpassed only by their revulsion at the forcing of state guardians, euphemistically known as Named Persons, on every child in Scotland.

Thanks to this European ruling, we can at least drown our sorrows in cheap booze to alleviate the stress of waiting for the courts to ‘get it right’; but we’d better not admit, and daren’t seek help for, any ‘problematic relationship’ with alcohol, because we know our hitherto confidential personal information will be bandied around every agency without our consent and may be used in evidence against us and others*.

Human rights challenge against ‘named person’ legislation refused by appeal judges

Associated forum thread

NO2NP press releases:

BATTLE OVER BIG BROTHER ‘STATE GUARDIANS’ HEADING FOR SUPREME COURT – AND POSSIBLY EUROPE – AFTER SCOTTISH JUDGES REJECT CLAIMS NAMED PERSON SCHEME IS UNLAWFUL

SUPREME COURT BECKONS FOR NAMED PERSON CHALLENGE AS JUDGES REJECT CALLS TO PUT SCOTTISH FAMILIES FIRST

Comment by David Scott on UK Column

[video, 26 mins in]

 

 

Aileen Also has meanwhile reappeared from the sock drawer to tell us what’s best for “all our children”. Alice is not impressed:

Court rules policy is in best interests of children

But fear not, we are apparently going to be allowed to complain about the people they have forced on our children, some of whom may well be Jimmy Savile sorts with access to a handy new version of the paedophiles’ address book.

Complaining about the Named Person (or, more accurately, the Road to Nowhere)

Given the governments track record in ignoring parents’ views and pandering to the vested interests of rentseeking ‘experts’, we can assume that we will be presented with yet another pointless piece of time wasting bureaucracy designed to encourage ganging up on parents by (un)professionals who have shared access to complainants’ personal information “at the click of a mouse”.

Interesting observations are also appearing across social media, including the fact that the judge who presided over the NO2NP appeal is currently in the running for the prestigious Lord President’s job (to be decided by the First Minister). It is also worth noting the apparent double standards of Scottish judges, who fought tooth and nail to protect their own private interests, yet have failed to uphold the equal right to privacy for children and families.

As the Herald reported:

A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament in 2012 called for members of the judiciary to declare their “pecuniary” interests, which would include shareholdings, directorships and membership of external bodies.

The plan was met with hostility by the country’s top judge, Lord Gill, who repeatedly snubbed calls by the committee to give oral evidence.

He relied on written testimony to blast a proposal he said could compromise judges’ privacy by encouraging “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.

Lord Gill concluded:

“The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary.”

Peter Cherbi (the petitioner for a register of judges’ interests) responded:

“There cannot be one set of rules for judges and another for everyone else. A register of interests will enhance public trust in the justice system, not detract from 

That all sounds a bit like “hyperbolic paranoia” on the part of Scottish judges, whereas abuse of power by Named Persons and others is a very real risk (and a dead cert as of August 2016) for parents and children, several of whom have already suffered actual detriment as a result of the implementation of an allegedly not-yet-enforceable policy.

Image credit: Scottish Sunday Express

In addition to Kaylie Hutton’s experience, reported in the Express, we have evidence that the sensitive personal data of an individual accessing ‘confidential’ services has been passed to, and widely shared by, the named person of an unrelated child in order to inhibit the legitimate parenting decisions of a former partner. Truly Orwellian.

The credibility of the Scottish judiciary is already at rock bottom and it is the court of parental opinion that will ultimately determine the fate of GIRFEC and its SHANARRI McStasi in the form of teachers, health visitors, nurses (and every other nosy parker).

Families are already leaving Scotland or deciding not to come, having undertaken their own risk assessments in relation to GIRFEC (Getting Information Recorded for Every Citizen), which essentially compromises their children’s safety and security and abolishes the right to respect for family privacy. Anecdotally, it appears to be economically active people (‘positive contributors’) who are abandoning Scotland, so their taxes will be lost to the economy (unless they also plan to close the borders to keep people in – that’s already been tried elsewhere and there is already a part-constructed wall near Carlisle courtesy of the Romans!)

The average 12-year-old (who has managed to steer clear of SHANARRI brainwashing via the dumbed-down Curriculum for Excellence in Compliance with state-dictated outcomes) would recognise the imposition of a compulsory state-appointed Named Person and forced wellbehaving regime as unlawful interference in private family. However, totalitarian-minded politicians and a complicit Scottish judiciary have decided it is acceptable to ignore binding UK and EU legislation, as is evident from the raft of ultra vires policies that have been stealthily introduced without statutory foundation and are being reinforced by ‘training’ designed by useful idiots for other useful idiots.

Those who are stuck up SHANARRI sh*t creek without the proverbial paddle will need to be creative in their resistance, and now that consent requirements and established intervention thresholds (as affirmed by the 2013 Haringey judgement) have been abolished in Scotland, savvy service users are already taking sensible precautions by withholding information and/or avoiding government and government-sponsored third sector agencies altogether. 

Parents should be aware that every state funded and state regulated organisation will be compelled to collect and hand over children’s and associated adults’ data to state appointed Named Persons who will have carte blanche to share that information without consent. All unavoidable engagements with professionals should therefore be recorded, and consent for data processing without prior written authority should be formally withheld or withdrawn (not that it will deter them from sharing everything, but it may be useful as evidence of professional misconduct). Regular use should be made of statutory subject access requests (SARs), and complaints to the ICO should always be pursued where data has been processed unlawfully. albeit the ‘watchdog’ has already been found to be in cahoots with the government’s GIRFEC cult. 

We shall say this only once: Such measures do not represent “hyperbolic paranoia”, but are based on a realistic assessment of risk by parents who would rather their children and loved ones be safe than sorry.

The government really hasn’t thought through the consequences, especially for the most vulnerable children who will be buried under a mountain of SHANARRI defined ‘signifcant events’, including occasional grazed knees and pet bereavements, that must now be recorded for every child. It should be remembered that the two most recent non-accidental child deaths (Mikaeel Kular and Chloe Sutherland) occurred in Edinburgh, where GIRFEC is already deeply entrenched and Named Persons are already reportedly interfering in legitimate parenting decisions.

Come August 2016, there will be no more excuses and heads will have to start rolling. Tick tock, it’ll soon be time to get your knitting out – unless the Supreme Court moves to strike down this illiberal, unpopular, unworkable and shambolic blot on the Scottish statute books, which is held in contempt by all right minded parents and has brought shame on our nation.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.