According to the latest snippet of Scottish Government spin, the compulsory named person is a point of contact who parents will never need to approach if they choose not to. Lying by omission is still lying, of course. Parents don’t need to approach anyone for their sensitive personal data to be mined without consent (i.e. stolen), trawled by everyone including hackers, edited, corrupted, or even fabricated, then used as ‘evidence’ against them by any of the professionals with whom they have come into contact and who may not approve of their parenting choices.
For those who have swallowed the spin, this unconvincing performance by a government cheerleader is a must listen.
Transcript (courtesy of Mark H):
AS – Alan Small, chairman, Fife Child Protection Committee – formerly Scottish Government advisor on GIRFEC and information sharing;
KA – Kaye Adams;
2/7/15 BBC Radio Scotland
AS: I don’t think it’s helpful that the media – and Radio Scotland are involved in this as well – continue to use the phrase ‘state guardian’. I think that gives the wrong impression. In fact, what we’re talking about is a teacher or a health visitor. We’re not talking about somebody who will intrusively inquire into people’s lives. They’re there to help and support.
KA: But I mean that’s what we don’t exactly know at this point as to what extent an individual – and call them what you will – will have the power or indeed the inclination to, whether you say, interfere or get involved or pry or inquire into people’s lives. I mean is that controlled?
KA: I mean can you hang up the phone and say, “Go away, I’m not interested”? You know, they phone up and say, “Hello, I’m your child’s assigned Named Person. I’d like to sp…”; “No, bye,”. Can you do that?
KA: Oh? You can’t do that?
AS: Yes and no. Well, it is…it all has to be taken into context with the needs of the child. So it’s not right and proper…
KA: But who decides the needs of the child?
AS: Well, that will be up to services and the Named Person. However, the legislation is completely covered by…
KA: And where’s the parent in that?
AS: …and the word that should be used is ‘proportionality’ The parent will be involved throughout.
KA: But these words are so open to interpretation, Alan. ‘Proportionality’; define for me ‘proportionality’.
AS: I actually don’t think there is a definition that’s suitable for ‘proportionality’. ‘Proportionality’ is fairly well understood in public service. It’s not intrusive, it’s not being overly heavy-handed and it’s working with parents and families and I think that’s what I think Named Persons will do.
The ‘expert’ in this clip, who failed to explain the meaning of ‘proportionality’, isn’t too familiar with that other data protection principle, ‘necessity’, either. In this presentation, which he delivered at Stirling University, he exhorted his audience of practitioners to bypass consent and breach the duty of confidentiality. He is obviously just following the ‘lead’ of the Ass. Info Commissioner, who may as well be a fireguard made out of chocolate, given his questionable take on the Data Protection Act.
To be absolutely clear, these state snoopers aren’t only trawling your child’s and your own records of ‘engagement’ with any agency, but can also access those of all your other family members and associated adults. That means your child’s head teacher, as a forcibly imposed named person, has carte blanche to obtain information from all other ‘professionals’ (which was previously only permissible where a child was considered ‘at risk of significant harm’, but is now being actioned on a routine basis well before the legislation comes into force). The Scottish Government has deliberately unleashed a monster, in the form of a SHANARRI Stasi, on a largely unsuspecting (until now) public, with no thought to the consequences of universal data rape. England and the Isle of Man sensibly kicked out similar schemes, while Scots have become the experimental lab rats of Europe.
The Children and Young People Act 2014 and accompanying guidance on data theft (which only a few sycophantic state funded organisations and so called ‘charities’ supported, and now even some of them are breaking ranks) makes the extent of planned state intrusion abundantly clear. If you appear to be veering from your state approved parenting path (for example, by electing to home educate, declining vaccinations or non compulsory ‘services’ like health visiting, or even if you have ever been a victim of crime), they will be able to twist a non approved parenting decision into a ‘concern’ in order to compile chronologies and reports (the contents of which may well be inaccurate and/or based on gossip and hearsay). The named person (whom you may have never approached) will then proceed to convene multi agency meetings without your knowledge, or else at very short notice, so that they can do a hatchet job on you if you take the ‘opportunity’ to attend without having time to arrange an accompanying observer or advocate.
Now that confidentiality is no longer sacrosanct, it is surely eminently sensible for every parent to (a) keep every professional at arm’s length, (b) insist on written details of every alleged ‘concern’ (who raised it and when), and (c) video/audio record (then transcribe verbatim) every ‘engagement’, since ‘minutes’ may bear no resemblance to actual events.
For anyone who thinks that all sounds a bit ‘paranoid’, you probably won’t have to wait too long to find out they are also out to get you, for the Snooperati are already implementing legislation that has not yet come into force with apparent impunity. Of course, if you are one of those useful idiots who don’t have anything to hide, you won’t mind your child’s and your own health records, your sister’s post natal depression, grandad’s dementia or a distant relative’s problems with alcohol being gathered and shared willy nilly (and possibly becoming the subject of playground tittle tattle, as has already been reported).
But have you considered for a moment that, regardless of your own cavalier attitude to personal privacy, just maybe all these other people will mind their sensitive personal data being misused in this way – if they ever find out, that is, since no one has ever told them, let alone asked their consent.