Put a large calendar in front of you this morning as you read this, you will need an efficient reminder that it is NOT April Fool’s Day.

Remember when we were all terribly concerned with the quality of the meat that we eat? Remember when the government decided that all pigs/cows/sheep should have their own log book,  a reminder that we could look back on and know exactly where they had been, with whom, what they had eaten, when they’d been sick, what had been prescribed for them, whether they had been given enough ‘emotional stimulation‘, had their hair cut at the right time – and to make sure there was no cheating, we insisted that they have a tag in their right ear so that we could always match them up to that record? We thought it was a great idea, we could trace our lamb chop right back to the time when it was just a gleam in a randy Ram’s eye. Farmers were just caretakers, right? Sure they bred the animals, but the state had a right to monitor how they went about it? Yes?

Keep looking at that calendar.

Remember when the new Children’s Act came out? All that guff about ‘best interests’, and how at the end of the day, a child’s ‘best interests’ was to be judged by the judiciary on behalf of the state. Parents might think that curtailing little Tarquin’s TV watching to two hours a day was best for him, but if Tarquin went to court and argued about it, there was always the chance that the judiciary would over rule the parents. The parents might have bred the child, but the state had the right to monitor how they went about it.

Some overexcited commentators claimed that in fact children now belonged to the state, that they were a product, like a lamb chop, to be monitored. How we laughed! Battery children! So much oversight might be a reasonable notion for the child battering classes; but for the rest of us, well, we loved our children, we knew what was best for them, we would continue to rear them to the best of our ability, taking pride in the outcome.

Take a trip up to the Socialist Republic of Scotland, take that calendar with you – and see who’s laughing now. Can’t imagine every child with a tag in its ear? I can.

The Children and Young People Bill which has recently been introduced to the Scottish Parliament seeks to establish a universal surveillance system in respect of every child and associated adult in Scotland. I particularly like the ‘associated adult’ – not just the biological parents, but any adult that the child may come in contact with would be ‘under surveillance’.

You are expected to focus on the ‘child protection’ angle of course. Those rare, but can never be rare enough, times when a household throws up a Baby ‘P’. It will probably be known as ‘Angus’s Law’ or Hamish’s Law’, or whatever name the latest one in six million battered child is called.  Naming a law after a sadly battered child legitimises laws that are actually the will of the mob. The use of christian names, accompanied by the obligatory wide eyed photograph of the child, has the effect of stoking raw emotions, it is the tabloidisation of political manipulation. Who would oppose a law, no matter how draconian, named for a murdered child?

So you won’t oppose it; you will keep the pleading eyes in the picture of Angus or Hamish firmly in your mind as you contemplate the new Act. ‘We can never let this happen again’, you will say, ‘how dreadful, poor wee mite’! And whilst you are busy focussing on the one in six million chance that this might happen to another child, you will find that you too have become a household ‘under surveillance’. You too will have become a battery farmer of children on behalf of the Scottish State.

For the Bill doesn’t just allow for the minute by minute surveillance of those ‘horrid’ households where the parents put drink and drugs before food; those towering blocks of human misery that you pass on the way home and avert your eyes; those cubicles inhabited by single mothers with ‘God knows who’ by way of the sixteenth boyfriend this year; those households containing nasty men who think nothing of bashing a security guard over the head and who wouldn’t flinch at meeting out the same treatment to a helpless child; those cold damp warrens with coverless cots containing miserable children that you try not to think about – the Bill is about your household too!

Yours! Where the children are tucked up warm every night after a home cooked supper; where you vet every baby sitter, and agonise over whether you can afford to send Tarquin on the educational trip to Vienna. Yours! The home you scrimped and saved for so that Tarquin could have a garden to play in, and bring the school hamster home for the holidays.

God help you if the hamster decides to peg it whilst you are out choosing Clarke’s sandals for little Tarquin’s growing tootsies. Because that could be a ‘traumatising event’ in Tarquin’s young life. One that will be noted in his log book, so that others may look back and decided if it was all your fault that Tarquin grew up to become a radicalised Muslim…

You think I’m joking? The Bill imposes a ‘State Appointed Guardian’ on every child; not just those deemed to be ‘vulnerable’. An apparatchik whose job it will be to collate information from a wide range of social workers, teachers and medical professionals – and neighbours. Who will keep and share notes on every incident in your child’s life. When Tarquin tells his teacher that you didn’t believe that he had tidied his room and went upstairs to check – that’ll be a tick in the box marked ‘Child’s account minimised/not believed by carer’. Or ‘Mummy says I have to ask Daddy too’ – whoops, another tick – ‘Carer continually defers to partner for response’.

Take a look at the different agencies that will be sharing this all important information about whether you actually believed that Tarquin had put his toys away – everyone from the local fireman to ‘automatic equipment prescriptions’ – that’s the people who decide whether grand-dad can have a walking stick on the NHS! The ability of State departments to leak information is well known.

This is State dictated child breeding – and woe betide you if you don’t live up to the ‘wellbeing’ outcomes dictated by their check list. It makes chilling reading. Known as GIRFEC (Getting It Right For Every Child), it is already being used, and in some cases abused, by professionals within universal services and other agencies who have been routinely gathering, storing, assessing and sharing sensitive personal data on every child and every associated adult without express informed consent and in the absence of any enabling statutory framework.

I can’t understand why they have missed out a requirement for ear tags? How will they know whether you have switched young Tarquin for a teenager with a clean check sheet when you present him back to the Government and wait to collect your Gold star for child rearing? That is why they demanded ear tags for the little piglets…

Can anyone figure out how giving Social Workers a zillion more innocent families to monitor is going to improve life for the vulnerable children that they can’t manage to monitor now? I can’t see the logic of it at all.

Edna Fletcher
May 29, 2013 at 16:06

The trouble is there is a vast difference between opinion, belief, vested
interest and prejudice and well reasoned thoughtful consideration from
information / evidence gathered from all sides, to make a sound decision which
carries majority support (there will always be those who do not accept a
decision so reached). The reason for lack of sufficient critical thinking in
our times is the development of self appointed ‘experts’ developing into
professions where they hold the cards. The College of Social Work is asking
Social Workers to decide what their jobs actually are: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/27/05/2013/119214/college-seeks-social-workers-opinions-on-which-tasks-only-qualified-staff-should-do.htm

You would think that the chair of the College, as Director of Adult Care in
Lambeth, might know, what on earth the staff in her department do that no one
else can do? This is job creation for social work. It happened with
psychologists / psychiatrists and others where the science is rather poor, but
pseudo science is rife with a lot of opinions.. Mirrors the politicians, so
the citizen feels ridden over roughshod.

ian macdiarmid
May 30, 2013 at 03:14

Sorry, if you were trying to explain anything you have failed miserably
with your gobbledygook. I would suggest that if you have anything to say you
just say it in plain language for everybody to understand.

The problem with this discussion in hand is it is splattered with the
most excruciating jargon. I say, toss it away, and just say what you
mean.

Edna Fletcher
May 30, 2013 at 10:51

Sorry my education is to blame for complex thinking / language- which
is a default position. Now I’ll try plain English.

I was responding to …”..I think we’ve seen the power of a few voices
from the internet being misused…” above.
My meaning:

1. There is no gathering of relevant information from all ‘experts’
sources / research without their ongoing input which becomes a campaign of
those with vested interests in a particular decision / policy. This means
intelligent citizens are not allowed to weigh up themselves all the
information / evidence on which politicians, if they were intelligent,
would rely.

2. The growth of college courses in subjects such as social work,
psychology etc. has been such that they have taken on an air of
credibility without the evidence base that much of modern science /
medicine relies from centuries of study / research of large numbers of
subjects. This leads to self appointed experts who offer no more than
personal opinion and judgement, which is something any government should
be wary of. The recent arguments about the classification of mental
illness from a new manual has caused a stir in the system because of this
issue.

The newly established College of Social Work asking its social work
members to decide what it is that makes their job unique is a very good
example of the growth of a self appointed profession which needs to gain
credibility. Social work is not a profession, it is a vocation. Anyone
with very good people skills and common sense and ability to form
relationships easily do well in helping others overcome circumstances of
life.

The situation in Britain has moved the goal posts so that social work
feels undefined by modern dictates from government. My point is that it is
wholly wrong to allow a ‘pseudo profession’ to define itself. A profession
is defined by its specific body of knowledge, evidence or skills base.
Social work has none specific to it that others could not manage; it is
needing to keep itself in work. This is ridiculous and dangerous to
society.

janet May 29, 2013 at 05:01

When these named people come chapping at families homes, do we have rights
to access their personal Data, computer stored information, health records,
GP, Police vetting, or is it one rule for them and another for us. What if
this so called named person disagrees with families upbringings, religious
morals or Educational rights, have we all to bow down and do what we are told
or subject losing our kids until we change. This is a breach for rights to
private, family and home life protected by the Human Rights Act. Assuming all
children in Scotland need a named person and are at risk is inhuman or
degrading treatment prohibited by the Human Rights Act. Article 3: Right not
be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
When could this right be relevant? ( Lack of respect for privacy). Article 8 –
Right to private and family life, Privacy – this is defined broadly and
relates to all aspects of privacy both in and outside of an individual’s
private home, Family life – this covers all close and personal ties of a
family kind – not only those of a blood or formalised nature, Home – this is
not about a right to a house but rather a right to respect for the home life
of an individual, Correspondence – this covers all forms of communication with
others such as phone calls, letters, emails etc, When could this right be
relevant? Respecting people’s right to privacy in their own home, in a care
home, in a hospital setting or elsewhere in the community, Use of personal
information. I think the authorities should focus on the children already
known to the state that are being let down by authorities and the so called
named person instead of branding all parents a risk and all children a risk of
being abused. Scotland the free country, or onced was.

Edna Fletcher
May 29, 2013 at 11:30

Some here may see the dangers of what is happening slowly in an underhand
way, because once powers are given to vested interests or their words deemed
to have greater credibility than the common sense of the ordinary citizen
democracy and freedom- essential to humanity, die. But it does need everyone
to challenge the politicians, agencies and systems in a mass effort to
ensure that the the elected representatives are left under no illusion as to
what will happen if they allow vested interests and focus groups to be the
basis of policy making for the majority with unwarranted state
interventions.

Largescale widespread peaceful activism is rare in England and petitions
depend on the internet and writing. An MSM with its own agenda is not
helpful either.

Moor Larkin May 29, 2013 at 12:02

@Edna Fletcher

It was actually quite scary to realise from a Raccoon blog a few weeks
ago that just a tiny number of contributors on here had been very
influential in terms of blocking some legislation that an even smaller
group of ‘professionals’ had deemed prudent and were all but forcing upon
our elected representatives. I guess that one ‘democratisation’ of the
internet could be to give the politicians some ammo to help them
reasonably block the plans of their apparatchiks and bureaucrats – some
direct “public opinion” that is not reliant on ‘journalists’ to roust it
up first.

I think we’ve seen the power of a few voices from the internet being
misused in the creation of the fog around child abuse recently, with the
exploitation of a small caucus from Friends Reunited, and the wider sphere
of paranoiacs that can write in such places as the Icke forums. Like any
form of democracy it aint gonna be poifect.

ian macdiarmid
May 29, 2013 at 00:50

I was aware of Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) a couple of years
ago but at that time it was in connection with child protection. England has
its own Every Child Matters which is very similar in outlook to GIRFEC
although they are a bit slower to push through the required legislation. What
is happening here is that the Scottish legislation is being pushed through in
an underhanded way. If parents in Scotland were aware that GIRFEC relates to
ALL children now, they would never agree to it. The very fact that the
legislation is being sneaked through, is a testimony to that.

These ideas are coming from the United Nations by way of the European Union
which is not a democratic body. It will be pushed through in England as well,
so you have advance warning. To turn this into a Scotland versus England
debate misses the point.

Schoolhouse
HEA May 29, 2013 at 09:14

Ian, how right you are! Sold as a Scottish idea, but far from it, GIRFEC
is just one of many UN conceived / EU driven incarnations to have conned the
unwary and/or serially stupid into believing it is about child protection.
Just as Victoria Climbie’s tragic death was falsely and cynically claimed to
be the trigger for ECM /ContactPoint in England, Danielle Reid’s horrific
murder in Inverness was a similarly handy vehicle to introduce and advance
GIRFEC (pooted history here: http://www.home-education.biz/blog/civil-liberties/id-cards-for-babies-the-rest-will-follow).
It has cross party support, with Tony Blair being an early cheerleader for a
policy described by Tony Benn at the time as “the sort of thing Hitler
talked about”, so EVERY politician is culpable in this assault on families
(including, ironically, the most voociferous opponents of ID cards and the
National Identity Register) and some of the ill informed, patronising
template responses sent to constituents would insult the intelligence of an
average 5 year old. ‘Early intervention’ is not about ‘child protection’ as
most ordinary folk understand it and which is uncontentious (targeting those
children who are obviously at risk of significant harm with available,
dwindling resources); rather it’s about massive data gathering for EVERY
CHILD and by association EVERY CITIZEN and designating EVERY PARENT as a
criminal-in-waiting. The disease is highly contagious and will very soon
spread south as big data means big bucks for vested interests and all the
usual suspects.

Moor
Larkin May 28, 2013 at 17:01

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to get everyone on facebook? It’s pretty easy to
follow the lives of others on there. A daily photo of the kids could even be
scanned by the same sort of software as they use to let me in and out of the
country – checking for swellings and that sort of thing. I’m gathering that
Glasgow has the lowest broadband penetration in the UK so some work to be done
yet to make it practical.

DP May 28, 2013 at 16:14

Dear Mrs Raccoon

These are not Scottish children these are UK chicldren:

“PART 1

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN

1 Duties of Scottish Ministers in relation to the rights of children

(1) The Scottish Ministers must

(a) keep under consideration whether there are any steps which they could
take which would or might secure better or further effect in Scotland of the
UNCRC requirements, and

(b) if they consider it appropriate to do so, take any of the steps
identified by that consideration.”

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Bills/Children%20and%20Young%20People%20%28Scotland%29%20Bill/b27s4-introd.pdf

So, coming to an English / French child near you …

DP

DP May 28, 2013 at 16:16

oops sorry, I meant UN children

Fat Steve May 28, 2013 at 06:22

A quote by Bakunin —-’The State has always been the patrimony of some
privileged class or other; a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a
bourgeois class, and finally a bureaucratic class…. But in the People’s State
of Marx, there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all … but there
will be a government, which will not content itself with governing and
administering the masses politically, as all governments do today, but which
will also administer them economically, concentrating in its own hands the
production and the just division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the
establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of
commerce, finally the application of capital to production by the only banker,
the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many “heads
overflowing with brains” in this government. It will be the reign of
scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and
contemptuous of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of
real and pretended scientists and scholars.’
It appears even he did not
anticipate the extent the state would arrogate the right to social as well as
economic control. Obvious though if one thinks a bit about it —in a Socialist
state there are no individuals just the economic resource of ‘labour’ which
needs to be ‘controlled’.

David Grant May 27, 2013 at 23:44

Thank you, Anna Raccoon, for posting this, for making the horrors of GIRFEC
plain and for leavening it with humour. I am soooo glad my children are well
out of the range of the fangs of these parasites.

binao May 27, 2013 at 20:42

No deep comments to make but I am reminded of a conversation with my niece
a few years ago. She and her husband have a smallholding in the SouthWest,
i.e. subsidise farm animals by having other jobs.
‘You have to understand,
uncle that when the animals are slaughtered the chops all have to fit in the
same size plastic boxes, doesn’t matter if it’s Waitrose or Asda. They’re not
really saleable otherwise’.
Seems to me that the total disrespect for us as
individuals by those running the state have reached that same level.

Smoking Scot
May 27, 2013 at 20:26

Seems they’ve lifted the Finish model and, having noted where they’ve had
problems, improved on it ever so slightly.

No great enthusiasm in Finland to even have a child, with a birth rate
that’s well below replacement for decades and the average age of mothers
advancing every year.

http://www.stat.fi/til/synt/2012/synt_2012_2013-04-12_tie_001_en.html

The people who drafted this must be aware this is a very likely outcome. So
they’ll get a slightly more acceptable version of the Chinese one child
policy.

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 20:36

Social workers do not have children then? Or maybe the aim is to populate
the country with social worker offspring- to replace the ‘defective’
ones.

Jonathan May 27, 2013 at 19:06

Ah, Anna, it’s all been predicted centuries ago. If your readers have never
read more Jonathan Swift than Gulliver in Lilliput, may I strongly suggest
they read A Modest Proposal and laugh – but see the point. Dean Swift knew
just how to make his point cleverly, funnily and correctly.

Danae May 27, 2013
at 17:59

Hi Anna,

Thanks for pointing out the lunacy. Create more records – more rubbish to
wade through – so that you can ‘safeguard’ every child. Makes no sense, does
it?

Well, it does, if you’re going to control every citizen.

carol42 May 27, 2013 at 17:48

I grew up in Glasgow and if they really want to help the children really at
risk they should forget social workers and bring back what we used to call
‘the man from the cruelty’ mostly ex police and ex forces they were nor afraid
of the feral underclass as social workers clearly are, hence horrors like baby
P and others. The State has done such a wonderful job so far so of course they
will do a better job of raising our children LOL. What on earth has happened
to our country?

Schoolhouse
HEA May 27, 2013 at 18:24

I well remember ‘the cruelty’ from up in teuchter land in the 1960s! Our
new village dominie (an incomer who didn’t quite get the locals or even the
lingo) nearly called them in when my father was a bit overzealous with the
hair clippers on my wee brother (who isn’t called Tarquin and survived
several childhood accidents requiring hospitalisation without the cruelty
taking a blind bit of interest). Creating a state approved blueprint for
childhood is not the way to improve the lot of the most vulnerable weans and
we really don’t want to feel like extras in the Scottish version of the
Sound of Music.

Dave Freeman in Lawfull
Rebellion May 27, 2013 at 17:25

You Registered your children at birth. The State owns your children.
Get
over it.

Daedalus
Parrot May 27, 2013 at 17:12

Christopher Booker has a lot to say on this and other UK “child protection”
here: Now-its-a-social-worker-for-every-child-in-Scotland. Booker
has reported many astonishingly cruel “child protection” actions by our caring
social services in recent months.

Estimated cost to Scottish (and mainly English) taxpayers for this State
control of children is £138 million per year. You can bet that if this
abomination of a law is passed, it will cost at least twice that by the time
our civil servants have gold-plated it.

BertEBasset May 27, 2013 at 14:30

That said, there’d soon be a wealth of detailed core data which may
indicate whatever costs there may be for under 18s to be brought by a mother,
with a limited or no relationship with the natural father and with having to
form relationships with possibly transient step parents.

Hope more than expectation that it will be presented that way if that is
what it shows.

Tony (Somerset)
May 27, 2013 at 14:19

The sooner Scotland gains independence the better, then they can pay for
all this rubbish themselves. The good thing, of course, is that they won’t be
able to afford it.

Mudplugger May 27, 2013 at 12:25

Are they “Battery Children” in Scotland because they’ve been deep-fried,
along with the Mars Bars and Curly-Wurlies ?

I’ll get my coat…….

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 12:41

Puts me right off my fried ‘fish’. After the horse meat affair one cannot
be too careful- these are desperate times it seems.

Anna
Raccoon May 27, 2013 at 12:41

One could argue that when they’ve been reared along the same lines as
piglets, they would be fit to eat…

GildasTheMonk
May 27, 2013 at 12:12

Hadrian’s Wall was a bloody good idea. If Cam-moron is looking for a big
infrastructure project to in that lazy politicians’ phrase “kick start”the
economy he could do worse than rebuild it….*grumbles on*

Ho Hum May 27, 2013 at 11:51

I’ve expressed my contempt of Scotland’s politicians in comments made on
prior posts here, but on this one, having had a quick skim through the Act and
its supporting documentation, I think I’ll politely decline to join the
‘Battery Commentators’, thank you.

Anna
Raccoon May 27, 2013 at 12:05

I take it that you’re not bringing up a child in Scotland then…?

Lucozade May 27, 2013 at 11:24

Re: “Can anyone figure out how giving Social Workers a zillion more
innocent families to monitor is going to improve life for the vulnerable
children that they can’t manage to monitor now? I can’t see the logic of it at
all”

I agree, if they are given so much extra work that’ll mean less time to
focus on children that really do need help.

I can see that this would be a very positive thing for those children that
appear, by teachers, doctors etc to be having difficulties or appear to be
struggling, and, not all seemingly nice homes are as pleasant to grow up in as
they might appear, but to insist that this is a nessecity for every child
seems like madness, and I worry could even be a little more harmful than
helpful. Could it damage peoples individuality and prevent them from
adequately disciplining their children I wonder?

Abuse is one thing, but I do worry that we may be veering toward’s an
outlook that forbids any sort of discipline at all, and discipline is
nessecery sometimes for us to learn and better ourselfs – and is vital when
children misbehave.

The goal posts for how you are supposed to bring up children properly seem
to be changing all the time as well, how can social workers even be sure that
their current ideals are 100% correct?

If a kid is doing well, why interfere? If they appear to be doing not so
well, then maybe they will be grateful for the help, but it seems unnessecery
to monitor every child to this extent and too intrusive….

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 12:15

Not for the state apparatchik though? So what’s different about the
spreading cancerous growth of the state?

Totally
Confused May 27, 2013 at 15:57

I have been saying this for years!!! (22 to be exact)

It is insane. They never look at the real ‘baby p’s’ but they do go after
the middle class. I actually had a Social Worker (sic) Tell me that it was
wrong that I sent my children to school and had a nicer house than her and
how dare I own two cars!

I know the gaul of me! Who do I think I am?
TC

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 17:29

How interesting- I was told by someone who does not like ‘officials’
that the ‘state apparatchik’ were jealous of me, I thought is was just
paranoia on the part of a ‘client of the system’ – clearly my diagnosis
was wrong

Totally
Confused May 27, 2013 at 19:09

I was also told when I registered the birth of my oldest ‘Remember,
that is not your child. You are only allowed to ‘look after it’ with the
permission of the State.’ Fast Forward 13 years….I was told my house was
too clean, my children were too well educated (‘they use too many big
words that I can’t spell’), I owned too many books (remember that) and I
fed them too well. (I was critiqued that my youngest didn’t know what a
chicken McNugget was but could identity a steak).

I was told the fact that my books and CD’s were in alphabetical order
was a ‘sign of mental illness’. Being organised and structured was
written as having ‘possible OCD.’ Plus of course making my children go
to church/sunday school (1.5 hours a week and C of E- not exactly
radicalising them was I!) was imposing on my children. (I found out the
writer of the report was a JW)

Sending my children to private school was a sign of being ‘dilluded’.
(?)

When they literally marched into my house my then 9 year old said ‘My
Mom doesn’t beat us…we have good food and an education..we have plenty
of books toys and activities now please get out of our house.’ (He
refused to look at her-stared at the TV the whole time) It was the first
time I didn’t tell my child off for being disrespectful to an adult- and
also failure to turn off the TV when a guest arrived.

That is what really happens.
TC

Edna
Fletcher May 27, 2013 at 19:42

I believe you fully- from my own recent experiences I know just
what kinds of unfounded judgements / poor standards SS make – based on
personal prejudices and text book theories regurgitated from college
courses, with no interest in critical self judgement.

We have seen on Anna’s blog just how the diverse life experiences
of children (good to bad) converged in rubbish in SS / Care records
being written unchallenged. I feel like we are living in the USSR, not
the Britain I grew up in. It was more free and as a child I feared
nothing- unlike todays children- who have not just the bogey man,
their parents or paedophiles, but social workers who can tear them
from the bosom of their family on a whim.

Ho Hum May 27, 2013 at 11:04

The little brat isn’t called Tarquin. He’s called Ruaridh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XED4rL9vj8

David Grant
May 27, 2013 at 23:37

I had forgotten this and thoroughly enjoyed falling about in stitches. It
is brilliant! Thanks for posting.

miss mildred
May 27, 2013 at 10:52

Who the will be paying for this in Scotland? I guess some funding from the
good old British tax payer. As said, more ammunition for the trouble makers
and manipulators to get their own way, or get back at someone who is strict
with them. Why is there so much paranoia about the welfare of children?. The
whole of our culture seems directed towards shortening child hood down to
about 9 or 10 years of age. Dressed in adult clothes. Watching adult TV, films
and porn. Smart phones given . Adult swearing. If a child plays out alone, he
or she is feral or neglected. No proper discipline, as parents afraid of
upsetting little Wayne or Tarquin. What can a mere social worker do to stem
the tide of media induced social, and lack of morals and ethics conveyed to
the kids over recent years? I recall, years ago, a mother pilloried for self
educating her large family and trying to keep away bad influences. HOW RIGHT
SHE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE. Read Toxic Childhood and marvel at what social
workers will be trying to cope with. Less funding, redundancies, constant
tinkering with the way social work is carried out. Culled from a new book on
social work I read this morning on Kindle. Tick boxing, targets, protocols.
Last but not least PC attitudes. Who decides what is right and wrong in
parenting situations? Parents are so variable. The results of even ‘good’
parenting for some kids is unexpected, when the child goes to hell in a
handcart when they hit the mid teens. For example drugs and
radicalisation.

Schoolhouse
HEA May 27, 2013 at 10:21

Many thanks, Anna, for raising awareeness of what has been creeping into
the lives of every family in Scotland over the past few years. As home
educators, we have been among the first to face the steamroller of state
disapproval as every parenting choice has become a risk factor for wee
Tarquin. We have created a petition on the change.org site urging the Scottish
Parliament to reject the aspects of the CHYP Bill which will threaten family
life and allow a data sharing fest of unprecedented proportion: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/members-of-the-scottish-parliament-reject-girfec-surveillance-and-named-person-for-every-child-in-scotland.
It has so far attracted 800+ signatures as people wake up to the fact that
GIRFEC affects EVERY child and is not about child protection in the establshed
sense, something that seems to have escaped the notice of most MSPs who have
swallowed the spin regardless of party political persuasion. So much for the
Scottish education system! Your readers’ support for the petition would be
much appreciated and thank you again for exposing the dangers inherent in this
Trojan horse piece of legislation.

janet May 27, 2013 at 10:03

The government should back off, their responsibilities should be with the
children already on the system that they are failing everyday, not branding
every child a risk. My children have a named person and its me their MOTHER i
will not live my life with a stranger telling me what is best or what way to
raise my children because the state said so. Scotland has became a mockery,
covering up their own mistakes by branding every parent unfit and all children
a risk.
Scotland the Free country, yeah free if you do what the government
tell you!!

Nigel May 27, 2013 at 10:00

After several years self education in politics, economics, history, etc., I
have reached the unshakeable conclusion that all government is the enemy and
should be denounced as evil at every opportunity. Every time I come into
contact with a politician of any persuasion I ask them to tell me how they
have made ordinary peoples lives better by their actions. The only response so
far? and embarrassed foot shuffle and retreat.
My only hope is that the
imminent financial armageddon will finally make the hoi poloi realise that
their lives are better directed by their own hands rather than leaving it to
numbskulls whose only driver is the possibility of re-election.

Single Acts of
Tyranny May 27, 2013 at 13:40

I know what you mean, it’s like taking the red pill from “The matrix”
things are never the same again when you get it.

Paul May 27, 2013 at 20:23

@ Nigel. Superb post and IMHO absolutely correct. Thank you.

Dave H May 27, 2013 at 09:15

The trouble is that the state doesn’t think far enough ahead. If It Saves
Just One Child ignores all those who are trampled in the rush to get to that
one child, who are harmed by the system that is set up to save them.

When looking for a needle in a haystack, one should not start by making the
haystack bigger.

On the plus side, we just need to teach our children about the
state-sponsored bogeymen who are coming to take them away and we’ll have a
whole generation growing up with an automatic distrust of the state.

Frank Limadere
May 27, 2013 at 09:13

Once everybody is employed by the state to watch everybody else that should
solve Scotland’s unemployment problem.

macheath May 27,
2013 at 10:07

Spot on!

The Scots observed New Labour’s massive administrative job creation
schemes in the North-east of England and recognized a socialist Utopia in
the making.

Those ‘automatic equipment prescriptions’ people are a fine example of
the unproductive activity that permeates the Scottish public sector; a
simple request for a walking frame, for example, takes up to three months of
form-filling and and phone calls and even then there’s a waiting list for
‘user training’ before they actually let you out in public.

Having seen both parents and several friends struggling with the
labyrinthine complexities and endless delays of the system, I am certain the
officials concerned grudge every moment spent dealing with requests – when
they can spare time from their endless tea-and-biscuits meetings – and are
hoping their troublesome ‘clients’ will depart this earth before any of the
valuable equipment actually needs to be broken out of its packaging.

Lucozade May 27, 2013 at 13:40

Frank Limadere,

Re: “Once everybody is employed by the state to watch everybody else that
should solve Scotland’s unemployment problem”

Lol, at least it will create jobs I suppose, albeit, for the most part,
pointless ones….

right_writes
May 28, 2013 at 07:38

They will be unpaid though Lucozade, since they want to detach
themselves from the English teat.

DP May 28, 2013 at 12:03

Dear right_writes

Oh no they won’t. That nice Mr Blair ensured that the Scots will
still be able to lap up English money when he gave away our rebate. It
was done to fund the bribe to entice the Scots into ‘independence’.
English money laundered into nice clean EU money, without the taint of
England upon it.

Scottish ‘independence’ is an essential part of the break up of the
UK into bite-sized EU regions. What passes for a parliament in Scotland
is an EU regional assembly. The really tricky part is to break up
England. Mass immigration (or more accurately, invasion) will achieve
that nicely: given long enough – about 10-20 years – many regions of
England will have immigrant majorities who will welcome the opportunity
to have their own regional government separate from the natives.

DP

BertEBassett
May 27, 2013 at 09:12

Appalling intrusion. If you don’t like your neighbours, fall out with your
ex or just want to cause mischief for someone on your social circle, you’ll
know what to do. DDR, anyone?

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 09:04

The Adult care legislation in Scotland includes powers of entry for Social
Workers- which England, for the present is not including.

Vis a Vis Children too- Where Scotland goes England will follow- as sure as
night follows day.

Edna Fletcher
May 27, 2013 at 10:29

Actually night and day are no longer distinguished by the politicians and
state apparatchik. I hear Aldous Huxley and George Orwell saying to each
other… ” we warned them what would come to pass…..they could not see how
inch by inch they were being fed soma by those who ruled over them who
denied them the right to self determination and freedom. The end of humanity
has arrived.”

The unfounded belief that politicians and government could work in the
‘best interests’ of the citizens of England (or indeed the UK) is belied by
the adversarial and self seeking system of coercion and control we see
today. Fools we are to believe any politician can act without knee jerk or
fatuous actions / reactions to issues affecting many people.

How many children can the state afford to take into care if the
inconsistent approaches to assessing risk continue? Why do we tax payers not
protest- as once did ‘conscientious objectors’ who saw the inhumanity of
war- this is no different? The state is not a small tribal community of
people but a set of impersonal and largely indifferent individuals with
power. How many laws are actually repealed that gives us such unfounded hope
in politicians?

The beginning and end of humanity relies on trust, co-operation and a
degree of altruism to persist. Without this what are our lives?

Opitimist Turned ‘old’ Cynic.

Ted Treen
May 28, 2013 at 12:27

“…How many children can the state afford to take into care..?”

It depends if they continue down their well-trodden path of selling the
kids to pedophiles…

Budvar
June 2, 2013 at 13:01

Is there much of a problem with kids being sold to foot
fetishists?