Campaign against GIRFEC, data theft and a state guardian for every child

Admin

Administrator
As a follow on to the Children and Young People draft Bill published discussion, I am starting a new thread now that the Bill has been voted through and the Christian Institute is preparing to launch a legal challenge, as reported in the media today.

Public opposition to the imposition of a state guardian for every child and non consensual data gathering and sharing has begun to gather real momentum as parents realise they have been deliberately deceived as to the true nature of GIRFEC by the government, the cheerleading (state funded) children's charities and other vested interests who stand to gain from the implementation of a universal surveillance system.

The Schoolhouse petition has now attracted 3400+ signatures and provides an overview of the main problems with the legislation. It was set up purely as an awareness raising vehicle since the government majority was always going to ensure the passage of this illiberal, anti family piece of legislation and the public had not only been kept in the dark about the implications for every family but were actually lied to. Please keep signing and commenting on the petition and encouraging others to do so in order to spread the word.

The Families Opposing GIRFEC (FOG) campaign group is meanwhile organising flag making events and extensive leafleting. You can download, print and distribute this leaflet to help raise and maintain more public awareness of the GIRFEC threat to every family.

Please like the FOG page and Say No to GIRFEC pages on Facebook and post any media reports, upcoming events and activities on this thread.
 
The Minister has said that parents need take no notice of the Named Person. Let's hope that parents follow this piece of advice.

Personally I wouldn't want to be a Named Person, you're on the hook if something bad happens to a child for whom you're supposed to be 'responsible'. Perhaps this is another angle to take to discourage people from wanting the job, although I guess the sort of people who'd volunteer for the post probably wouldn't think of that aspect.
 

Admin

Administrator
Aileen Also says
“Families are not required to accept advice or offers of help from the named person. Any actions or advice from the named person must be fair, proportionate and respect rights with the aim of safeguarding the well-being of the child.”
She is of course being disingenuous as the Bill effectively lowers the 'protection' threshold to ensure that every child's well-being will be deemed 'at risk' and therefore every intervention will be deemed proportionate.

How many children would not tick the at risk boxes using these state defined indicators of 'wellbeing'? And when midwives are tasked with determining 'parental capacity to provide wellbeing' by tick box (using intrusive state endorsed interrogation techniques and bypassing informed consent), every child's data will have been stolen even before leaving the womb for future use and abuse by a myriad of government agencies and third sector 'partners' (i.e. rentseeking fake charities and corporations).

Personally I wouldn't want to be a Named Person, you're on the hook if something bad happens to a child for whom you're supposed to be 'responsible'. Perhaps this is another angle to take to discourage people from wanting the job, although I guess the sort of people who'd volunteer for the post probably wouldn't think of that aspect.
Although the legislation apparently offers the Named Person immunity from personal prosecution so that their employing agency will be the respondent in any legal action, it won't protect individual employees from subsequent disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The teachers are about to get a great big shock as they are reduced to nothing more than box ticking minions and it's about time their distracted unions caught up with the rest of us.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
Just seen this on BBC site
.
MSPs will start taking evidence on whether Holyrood is rushing through legislation without proper scrutiny.Concerns had been lodged by two parliamentary committees that there was not enough time to consider the impact of late amendments.Now the Scottish Procedures and Public Appointments Committee (SPPA) is investigating possible rule changes.It comes after a row about the recent passage of the*Children and Young People Bill.
 

Admin

Administrator
Comment from legal firm Balfour and Manson

Comment from legal firm Balfour and Manson.

The Children and Young People Bill

Indeed it is open to question whether the state can ever make absolutely certain that children are completely protected and if this aim cannot be achieved then the question which will inevitably follow is whether they are justified in taking steps which, regardless of the safeguards, will have an impact on parents’ ability to raise their children.

Certainly if a challenge is to made to the proposed legislation, then it will be a dispute of considerable interest to those both within and outwith the legal profession.
 
Call off the GIRFEC engagement to stop unwanted SHANARRI advances

Taking Aileen Campbell at her word, we have drafted an opt out letter for use by any parent / young person who wishes to call off the GIRFEC engagement.

Call off the GIRFEC engagement to stop unwanted SHANARRI advances

In our view, the greatest risk comes directly from the government’s insane (for there is no other word) obsession with the covert collecting, recording and non consensual sharing of every bit of personal data on every child (and associated adult), riding roughshod over data protection and breaching fundamental human rights (unless, as in the case of the controversial ContactPoint, his or her family is wealthy, famous or important enough to be exempted from the risks of data theft by illegal hackers and snooper employees who may decide to flog it to the highest bidder). Making the already vulnerable more vulnerable appears to matter not a jot in the government’s game of Grand Theft Data which pales Candy Crush Saga into amateurish insignificance.
Taking Aileen at her word (and she does keep repeating herself), we thought we should arm parents (and young people with capacity) with a convenient means of officially calling off the engagement and refusing unwanted advances by state sponsored Nosy Parkers, SHANARRI worshippers and all the various pushy authoritarian types who not only believe they know best for everyone else, but also misunderstand the meaning of NO.
 
Data theft and the named person latest

Data theft and the named person latest

While lies about the history of GIRFEC and its application in practice may have fooled some of the people (including well meaning, wellbeing data stealing professionals) and no doubt helped to grease the wheels of public opinion in the short term (until the legislation could be forced through in faux child protection clothing), the government has now been declared guilty in the court of sentient parental opinion. A diverse coalition of interests has formed to oppose the data theft and Named Person sections of the CHYP Act which threaten every family in Scotland, and a legal challenge has been launched by the Christian Institute with backing from a number of non state beholden organisations, including Schoolhouse and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. The collapse of this nasty nosy parker’s charter is inevitable sooner rather than later as parents withdraw their goodwill towards professionals, demand services to ensure their children’s ‘wellbeing’ and/or make regular subject access requests to see how much of their family’s personal data has been stolen and shared unlawfully without informed consent. Having been publicly reassured by Aileen Campbell (with an apparently straight face) that engagement is not compulsory, all hellbeing will no doubt break loose if refuseniks experience victimisation as a result.
 

catm1105

ScotHE

Admin

Administrator
Another handy way to ensure all GIRFEC related complaints are conveniently 'lost' in the long, drawn out, painful process to reach yet another chocolate fireguard. Saves ministerial embarrassment when the policies they have forced on LAs are found to have failed miserably. :fish:
 

Admin

Administrator
No kidding! How ScotGov is Stealing Away Our Children

"Goose stepping to Roamin' in the Gloamin'" led by Perth & Kinross Council.

No kidding! How ScotGov is Stealing Away Our Children

"...The technological capacity to integrate practice and information between discrete database systems in the NHS, social work and education is in place, and the long finger of government is hovering impatiently over the ‘activate’ button. Hitherto, the only impediment is the law..."
‘In such cases where information will be shared, consent should not be sought, as to do so would give the subject (child or young person and/or their parents/carers) a false belief that they can control the decision, which they cannot.’ P&K Guidance Document
 
Here's the key bit:

59. Generally in education, the designated Named Person will be a promoted member of staff within the school, usually the head teacher. In practice the role of the Named Person may be delegated to be carried out by a deputy head or principal teacher. The Named Person will be part of a network of support and will themselves be supported by the management framework and procedures in place within the school and the local authority. Guidance will make reference to how the Named Person Service is to be made available to children who do not have a standard pattern of school attendance, like travellers, home schooled and those too ill to attend school.
There is no possibility that the Named Person can operate without interfering with home schooling. As such, home schooling ends up being controlled by the state. They might just well copy the Germans and make it illegal. And what was the name of the political movement that made home schooling illegal in those dark days ??? :ballchain:
 

Admin

Administrator
Since we would never aid and abet Nazis and child abusers, the Scottish Governments fake CONsultation on how best to shaft families needs to be exposed for what it is and universally boycotted. There will be plenty of fake charities rising to the occasion for lucrative opportunities to screw families, but we will resist their unwanted advances and refuse to tolerate their abuse.

Ex tablet salesmen (not forgetting the recently 'promoted' women who would sell their own grannies in a shortbread tin for personal advancement) might fool a bunch of Nurnberg rally attendees but the rest of us aren't so gullible.

I'd rather take my chances with the giant rodents living in the sewers than any Scottish politician, state employee or third sector 'partner' in crime. :puke:
 
An entirely legitimate question would be:

Q. As regards the provision of the Named Person service to Home Schooled children what consultation is planned with the stakeholders?
 

Admin

Administrator
The #GIRFEC #datatheft #namedperson plot thickens

The #GIRFEC #datatheft #namedperson plot thickens as Aileen passes the buck to Michael Russell to respond to FOG (or has the buck taken from her?)

A response from Michael Russell MSP (sent in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary)

This response leaves more questions than answers, especially about data theft and consent.

When we all say NO, what exactly are they going to do to our families?

:help:
 

hilarysearing

Active member
A radical perspective on trust and information-sharing

I have just come across someone called Allan Norman who is discussing trust and information-sharing at a conference tomorrow. The paper is called 'CP MASH-up: the case of AB v Haringey, and whether seeking consent increases risk or increases trust'.

His views are very interesting and the abstract is here: http://t.co/IwjCQJ06q0

He plans to publish the full paper after the conference.
 

hilarysearing

Active member
Thanks Sheila, I was unaware he's already well known here.

But it's good that he's taking a stand on these issues and raising awareness of the problems for social workers in not being trusted by families.
 
Look forward to seeing Allan Norman's full paper when published.

However, the law on sharing sensitive and personal information is quite clear and well explained in this HM Government document:

Information sharing: Further guidance on legal issues Integrated working to improve outcomes for children and young people
http://www.manchesterscb.org.uk/doc...egal issues , HM Government, October 2008.pdf

If you go to pages 5 and 6 of the document there is a very clear explanation of Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

In order to share sensitive and personal information without consent you have to prove that the sharing will 'protect someone's vital interests'.

So are the SHANARI indicators, of themselves, vital interests? The Scottish Government says they are and has enshrined that principle, so far, in primary law. On the other hand Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Has Scotland defined the 'necessary' by passing the Children & Young Persons (Scotland) Act? This needs to be tested in Court and we all look forward to the legal challenge by the Christian Institute.

My personal opinion is that Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act is perfectly clear. The mass gathering of SHANARI information without consent breaches Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act. My hunch is that if that point is expertly made in a court of law then a consent process for all GIRFEC information will be required. That would usefully shift the balance of power in Scotland back towards the family.
 
Top