Questions that must be asked over the Liam Fee murder – and the roles of Fife’s assigned Named Persons

The shocking and prolonged bestial treatment of two year old Liam Fee, leading to his death, leaves serious questions that must be asked and answered at the highest level in the land.

The baby’s mother and her partner, Rachel and Nyomi Fee, have today been found guilty of the murder of the Liam and of all associated charges laid against them – some relating to their sadistic torture of two other boys who appear to have been, in some unknown way and for some unknown reason, in their ‘care’.

Fife Council was one of the early implementers of the highly controversial Named Person form of state guardianship for all children living in Scotland from birth to legal maturity.

Did Liam Fee have a Named Person – who would have been his Health Visitor?

Did that Named Person do much ‘visiting’; express what concerns to whom, at what stages, how often and with what result; request involvement from what other agencies – with what responses; and take what actions – with what consequences?

The two other boys brutalised at the hands of the Fees and fortunate to survive, must also have had Named Persons.

Did those Named Persons – Health Visitors – also do much ‘visiting’; express what concerns to whom, at what stage’s and how often; request involvement from what other agencies – with what responses;’  and take what actions – with what consequences?

During the trial of Rachel and Nyomi Fee, they said that two year old Liam had been ‘self harming’.

It was not reported that prosecution counsel at the trial challenged or interrogated this claim by the murdering pair.

Was this question indeed pursued?

Can a two year old have a sufficiently developed sense of ‘self’ and of social and behavioural norms from which her or his experience differs to lead them to take to ‘self-harming’?

Can a two year old have a sufficiently developed sense of blame and responsibility to hold themselves responsible for what is happening to them – and to turn to ‘self harming’ in self punishment?

These issue requires to be explored and clarified.

The Scottish Conservatives have committed to opposing the statutory compulsory imposition of a Named Person jupon each child n Scotland – and to getting it stopped.

They are right to do so – and the Daily Mail campaign – or its  Scottish Edition’s campaign on the mater has been doing substantial good in raising public awareness of the existence of the statute; of the very high  level risk of many kinds that it carries; and of its utter unworkability in practice.

However, both the politicians and the journalists must start asking the hard questions and the uncomfortable questions they have not been asking.

This applies now to both the murder of Bailey Gwynne in Cults Academy in Aberdeen; and to the murder of Liam Fee in Glenrothes.

What role in his clearly troubled development was played by the Named Person of the boy who murdered Bailey Gwynne? What support for his wellbeing did that boy receive from his Named Person – whose specific responsibility this is?

What concerns did that Named Person express, at what stage and to whom, during the years up to his fatal stabbing of a fellow schoolboy?

What requests for help from other agencies in the matter were raised by this Named Person – and with what outcomes?

These are no longer life and death issues. It is too late for this in the case of both principals. Now they are death issues.

The lives destroyed are not only those of the tragically dead but those who jointly suffered – as in the case of the two other boys kept in the Fee household; and of the teenage murderer of Bailey Gwynne.

If this Named Person statute is to be railroaded through regardless, with the support of the opportunist Greens – as new Education Secretary, John Swinney seems prematurely determined to do [not for good reason but to avoid loss of political face] – it has got to stand up and speak its own name; with Named Persons acting in accordance with their very weighty responsibilities; and accepting that personal responsibility- even though it is legally their employer who is legally accountable.

And why have prosecutors in these two recent murder trials made no effort to take evidence from the Named Persons of the young people in question – nor even mentioned their very existence?

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments

  • I think first off this has to be one of the most horrific cases of child brutality we have heard of in modern times in the UK. The pain little Liam must have experienced throughout his life and approaching his death doesn’t besr thinking about. Furthermore the suffering of the other kids who survived and the potential long-term damage to them is heart breaking to imagine.

    It is the case that a number of services including the police and social work were aware of issues with Liam’s care as was the nursery he attended who catalogued a number of injuries. A serious case review will be conducted and it is probably best to allow that to conclude before jumping to any conclusions or questioning success or failure of certain policies.

    It would certainly appear that there have been failures across a range of service providers. Whether the named person policy would have/should have prevented this is certainly up for questioning and you would assume that would be part of any review.

    What a heart breaking story. So evil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

    Integrity? May 31, 2016 10:14 pm Reply
    • ‘Evil’ is the only word for this awful situation.
      In terms of Named Persons – the purpose of their introduction is specifically to identify and protect children deemed to be at risk over a much wider spectrum of ills – and supposed ills – than has ever been contemplated.
      That, as well as the conferring of an authority universally – and not situation-based – superceding that of the parents, is the heart of the controversy surrounding this compulsory provisiom.
      The existence of Named Persons, with this overarching and protective role, was not even been mentioned in connection with either the Bailey Gwynne or Liam Fee murders.
      Aberdeen and Fife had implemented the scheme at stages where those involved in these cases would certainly have had Named Persons.
      It is a matter of serious public interest for the specific interventions of those Named Persons to be known in what, in each case, if differently, were long developing situations.
      Here we have two situations of the most obviously extreme kind, where evidence of their nature existed in substantial measure.
      If, for example, the Named Persons concerned did indeed attempt to get actions taken to protect those in obvious need and were frustrated by other agencies who refused to recognise their authority, this needs to be known.
      Alternatively, if the Named Persons involved did not, for whatever reason, see or recognise the evidence of risk in both cases, that too must be known.
      The gravity of the responsibility which health visitors and teachers will be compelled to carry under this system is one of the significant concerns about its viability as much as its defensibility.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

      newsroom June 1, 2016 12:08 am Reply
      • I don’t necessarily disagree. The effectiveness, or otherwise, of the named persons policy is something I am far from convinced on. I can’t help but feel that the money spent on a blanket policy would be more effective if targeted where it is most needed.

        However I am wary of using specific cases as evidence against it until a thorough investigation has been carried out.

        For arguments sake let us say the specific named person has failed in their duties in this particular case. That doesn’t necessarily mean the policy as a whole is a failure. It could just be failure on a personal level. Similarly if it transpires the police and social work have not performed their duties to an acceptable level it could be a personal dereliction of duty or a failure in procedure (or both).

        Whenever cases like this occur there are reforms and commitments that all measures are bring taken to ensure such mistakes will never happen again. However,almost inevitably,they eventually do.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        Integrity? June 1, 2016 8:07 am Reply
      • I’m sure I read somewhere that in the court proceedings it was revealed that the Named Person was on an extended period of absence from work. Whether it transpires that this or is not the case in this instance, and how relevant in this instance, it raises the question more generally of the need for the appropriate procedures being in place to transfer Named Person responsibilities to a deputy or substitute in such circumstances

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

        jake June 1, 2016 11:53 am Reply
        • If the Named Person has overall responsibility for a child then they need to be available 24/7 – sober of course because they might need to drive to somewhere like a police station as well as take important decisions. Or a nominated deputy available.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

          Lundavra June 1, 2016 12:49 pm Reply
      • Newsroom, did you know that Argyll and Bute council implemented the named person scheme in 2012. The very next year there was a serious child protection scandal in one of its school.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        Citizen M June 4, 2016 9:11 pm Reply
  • What a messed up world: A gorilla is shot dead (harsh but in retrospect the only course of action) after seemingly trying to protect a fallen child…a mother and her partner torture their own child to death and will receive a custodial sentence at our expense…. are we missing something here ????

    Society can only do so much to protect the children from such vile abuse…we can put layer upon layer of bureaucracy in place to protect children, but the vast majority is simply lip service to our own natural guilt that we cannot protect all, an acknowledgement of societies failureto protect the innocent.

    We have lost sight of a realistic deterrent… the liberal do good’ers have broken the system… in such cases…. A capital crime deserves a capital punishment.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

    Karl Hughes June 1, 2016 6:32 am Reply
  • Probably a debate for another day but I can’t agree on capital punishment Karl. As much as I can understand the desire for it in a case as abhorrent as this and as much as I’d wish for it if it was my child that suffered in this way (the key reason why punishment needs to separate from revenge) I morally disagree with capital punishment.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

    Integrity? June 1, 2016 7:05 am Reply
    • “I morally disagree with capital punishment.”
      Whereas I Integrity, morally agree with capital punishment, those that follow the hollow moral stance that capital punishment should not “under any case” be used… should also foot the bill for keeping these mutations alive…

      how anybody can associate a moral code with somebody who tortures a child to death will always to me be beyond comprehension…..

      and now these two mutations are seeking recognition of their humanitarian rights to co-habitate ??? lol, you gotta be kidding me… humanitarian rights ??? you have to be human to get human rights…. Hopefully some form of prison justice will dish out their human rights.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

      Karl Hughes June 1, 2016 9:37 am Reply
      • I find it a bit lazy to accuse it if being a hollow moral stance just because it is a stance you disagree with. There are many obvious points to be made about wrongful prosecution which make it more than a moral stance. In a scenario where future evidence proves someone was put to the chair erroneously and the state pays put millions in compensation should you foot that bill?

        However my case against it is that I do feel there needs to be a defining line of right and wrong to separate criminals from those enforcing law. Once you have legal murder and illegal murder which is brought about through a considered justice system (rather than through wartime or in the rare occasions of defence) then I feel that line is too blurred.

        However,as I said,I do have sympathy with the case for it.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

        Integrity? June 1, 2016 10:00 am Reply
        • I agreed this is a debate for another time…hopefully it will come… however, when you have the likes of the killers of private Lee Rigby caught running him down and then decapitating him on film etc… what to do then ?

          As for paying compensation to the families of the wrongly convicted…firstly circumstantial evidence has to be put to one side in any capital conviction… reference your state side cut and paste comment; “In a scenario where future evidence proves someone was put to the chair erroneously and the state pays put millions in compensation should you foot that bill?” answer is yes…no problem with that.

          As for your reference to “legal murder” ? there is no such term unless you wish to use a liberal sound bite… the term is execution. These two women over a protracted period beat and abused this child to death, tried to blame it on another child…. they are guilty…hang them… QED

          If ever we get to know what public servant/s (those other than his mother and partner.. who had a duty of care to this child) contributed to his death…criminal prosecution must follow…manslaughter ??? or is that too harsh for you ??? maybe put them through re-training or therapy instead eh ?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

          Karl Hughes June 1, 2016 12:41 pm Reply
          • It will be the usual ‘lessons will be learnt’ though they never are. The guilty officials will move to another similar job elsewhere, probably for more pay.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

            Lundavra June 1, 2016 12:53 pm
          • It is interesting that you say you would be prepared to foot the bill for compensation for wrongful execution (not really fussed about your point about semantics – does it not become legal murder to some extent if it transpires the person was innocent?). Do you think all pro capital punishment people also be willing to pay and, more importantly would they pay when the invoices came in – I somehow doubt it.
            Also whilst you are paying those bills do you have some miraculous ability to bring that person back to life as that is the real loss in this, not financial loss.
            I realise this is an emotive subject and the vast majority of people are already firmly decided on it one way or another. However you seem to have fallen into the mythical trap that people who don’t agree with capital punishment are all for soft airy fairy punishments – it is a nonsense argument which has no substance other than the view it is death or nothing.
            Just because I am opposed to capital punishment does not mean I am opposed to tough sentencing (for a whole range of crimes, not just the very worst ones in society). I was disgusted the other day when someone received a 4.5 year jail sentence for a road rage incident which left two young girls in a wheelchair for life. I have little or no time for cries of human rights from people like these two odious creatures.
            Yes I know it costs money, and no small amount either, but I personally think it is a bill that society should foot in order not to condone a system which chooses who does and doesn’t die. I fully accept not all people will agree with that just as we don’t all agree on many policies which cost the taxpayer money.
            Also how much money would it actually save? Using the US as an obvious example. Between 2007 and 2012, 504 people were sentenced to death, 220 were actually executed. This is a country that has somewhere in the region of 13,000 homicides per year. OK these statistics would need careful analysis to make a really credible point but it gives a flavour for how many people actually make it to the execution out of those who might make it – and only after lengthy legal battles and appeals (all at cost. It would take a monster degree of analysis and a stack of assumptions to actually come up with a figure for how much capital punishment would actually save the taxpayer but I would wager it is nowhere near as much as some might think.
            If we remove all circumstantial evidence from capital cases are you not massively reducing the chances of getting convictions on the grounds of there being no reasonable doubt? Does that not run a higher risk of setting killers free? I am dodgy territory now as I am not a man of law so I will happily take an accusation of getting this all wrong!

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

            Integrity? June 1, 2016 1:37 pm
  • All such familiar ground, I was listening to two professionals on the radio refusing to say that the case had been a ‘failure’. We have to wait for the Serious Case Review which will take a year or so and spread the blame around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    Lundavra June 1, 2016 8:26 am Reply
  • Hard to see how it can’t be a failure of some sort. The extent to which it is and the root cause of it is what the review should establish. I am not so concerned about the time it takes, more concerned that it is thorough. Yiu csn understand professionals not wanting to make an instantaneous judgement on it though. It isn’t helpful when there is an investigation to be carried out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

    Integrity? June 1, 2016 8:44 am Reply
  • If the inquiry confirms that the named person scheme would have prevented this then there are neo cons on here who would disagree even if a child life could be saved.
    The dysfunctional family circumstances in this case must be looked at, why they seemed to do a runner from their own home to Fife and are then supported by the state re housing etc. The children appear to be a ticket for this.mAs for the social work service – everywhere, they need to look now for children that have slipped through the net and visit them today, tomorrow, Saturday , Sunday ………

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

    No Cheese Here June 1, 2016 1:22 pm Reply
    • Isn’t the point being made that Fife does have the Named Person regime and the child wasn’t saved meaning there is no way an enquiry can conclude named person would have saved him?

      Similar to the point you are making I will wager that if the enquiry was to conclude that the Named Person act had failed in its duty there will be some who will still defend it blindly.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

      Integrity? June 1, 2016 2:41 pm Reply
      • LACK OF INTEGRITY. The Fife scheme is not what will be put in place by the new legislation. Get your facts right. Basic slur on your part. Secondly no one should defend any such incident. It should not happen.
        Looks like the RUK brigade are trying to gloat. How low can they get. It would appear that they can go lower at every opportunity as does this anti anything the snp does or doesn’t do blog.
        Impartiality by the pretend news editor is something she does not comprehend

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9

        No Cheese Here June 2, 2016 12:58 am Reply
        • NCH

          I didn’t know there was any difference between the scheme piloted in Fife and the surrounding scheme to be implemented nationally until I saw that Nicola Sturgeon had said that yesterday. My guess is you didn’t either until the same time.

          However unlike you I’m not going to assume what someone else knows and claim it as fact so more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you did know they were different. It would certainly be interesting and useful to know what the material differences are. Maybe you would care to summarise them for us.

          As for defending the incident I suggest you go back and read what I said. At no point did I suggest anyone would defend the incident. I’ve been quite clear how evil it was.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

          Integrity? June 2, 2016 7:29 am Reply
    • But it did not prevent the murder even though the Named Person scheme was in operation there.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4

      Lundavra June 1, 2016 4:16 pm Reply
      • lundarva and lies.

        The scheme is not up and running. You know that. Tories are odious.

        If the new named scheme was to save 1 child the odious tories and right wing nut jobs would still complain.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

        No Cheese Here June 2, 2016 12:50 am Reply
  • Disgusted at Tory scum trying to make political capital out of this Tragic and heart wrenching case.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14

    Nae Fear Here June 1, 2016 3:37 pm Reply
    • This is the wrong thread to be hanging your fantasies from, NFH.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6

      Robert Wakeham June 1, 2016 5:26 pm Reply
  • Tory boys attempt to sway justice s kicked out of court.Judge says election result could be declared void.
    That’s the news you’re not getting from Tory owned media(ie,all of it)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

    Nae Fear Here June 1, 2016 8:28 pm Reply
  • The exam question here is this:

    In each of the horrendous cases that have occurred from Baby Peter, Victoria Climbie to Liam Phee, were people of responsibility aware and involved in that child’s life during the period of abuse? If the answer is yes, I think that goes a long way to support the claim that Named Person legislation, whilst well intended, adds no demonstrable value and is unlikely to save lives.

    I suspect, but would need to check, that in each of these cases nurses, carers, social workers, doctors and others were involved and yet somehow – the abuse was missed.

    We need to identify what is missing, and tackle that. Just formalising a role of ‘Named Person’ adds nothing – except introduces longer term consequences around blame.

    This is poor, ill thought out and dangerous legislation that does not solve the problem and most likely, will create more.

    The worst part of it is the most worrying trend of this type of legislation from the SNP – corroboration and football violence being two key pieces that are fundamentally flawed.

    People are waking up to Named Person – whether the government will accept that a new approach is needed – one that identifies root causes – remains to be seen.

    We all want to protect our children – I accept that. But we need a robust debate that leaves no stone unturned. It will be worth it in the long term.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

    JB June 1, 2016 10:41 pm Reply
    • Cobblers,just simply cobblers!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

      Nae Fear Here June 1, 2016 10:51 pm Reply
    • This wee lad was did not have a named person… which is mighty odd given the scheme has been piloted in Fife..??

      Swinney today said his government is working as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations of two reports into the country’s child protection system, the Brock report of 2014 and Daniel Report of 2012. Both of their authors have continually critisised the current Scottish government for dragging its feet.

      Brock made 12 recommendations, the report was issued in November 2014…the government said it would accept the findings in full, but has yet to move on one point.
      Daniel who issued her report in 2012 has stated that the SG has failed to implement her recommendations even though they were accepted.

      Today Swinney Swinney, that the government was “going through a process of implementing” the Daniel report, and “working its way through” the recommendations of the Brock report.

      He said the conclusions of the current review of child protection arrangements would “become clear towards the end of this year”. .. delay, upon delay, upon delay….Swinney also stated: “This is part of what I would describe as the perpetual challenge that we put in place to our child protection arrangements to make sure that they are effective, and that they can meet the needs of vulnerable children in Scotland” fail…big fail..

      “The government’s improvement programme, which was set out earlier this year, is part of that process of responding to these recommendations, and making sure we advance these recommendations as swiftly as we possibly can” how long has this government been in power >???

      Swinney said the number of social workers in children’s services had increased in Scotland by 7.5% between 2012 and 2014… what he didn’t add is that …we have Social services taking on more case loads than ever before… and that 80% time is now spent filling in reports…and only 20% out on the ground meeting the problems head on.… on-top of all of this we have a government who intend to roll out yet another scheme (named person)…. Jeeze these people can’t even look after farmers…how can they be trusted to offer social care. ..its a total CYA ( cover your ass shift the blame) burrach…

      SG needs to step up its game…increase the council tax and employ more social workers, not simply increase the work load these folk have with more Governmental CYA in-animate paperwork….. their tartan tory cuts are hurting their core voters more than any other group. QED

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      Karl Hughes June 2, 2016 12:47 pm Reply
      • Who implemented austerity? The SNP?
        No,the frigging joke that is Westminster!
        Get a reality check sunshine,you talk cobblers.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

        Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 4:20 pm Reply
        • Yes, SNP did implement austerity, in Scotland. They get a very large cheque from Westminster and have almost total freedom to spend it how they wish on devolved responsibilities like this.
          We’re trying to rescue the whole country from the spending binge-fest of crazy magic money creation funded by gross levels of person debt racked up by us all during the heady Labour years when they didn’t seem to question any of the crazy behaviours because “everyone else was doing it”. Now, we’re all having to pay and the only two answers are either through “austerity”, or higher taxes, and ironically the only party who positively endorsed the higher tax route was Labour.
          SNP, even with its new powers, has chosen continued “austerity” over asking us to pay more for things like, oh, social workers perhaps and reducing wasteful bureaucracy?. It has chosen to starve local authorities for years through it’s council tax freeze, when many of us would have been happy to pay more tax to fill in the cracks so obviously appearing. But if we pay, we control. If the Government funds, it controls, and control is what SNP like.

          SNP is good at spin and headlines but this is a good case of a headline policy initiative, albeit current in trial, resolutely failing to do what it was meant to. And now SNP want to spin the back peddling and deflect any blame. What is the point of a 7 year trial? This poor child was already on the radar, and slipped off we are told. Why? Isn’t this child exactly the type that the Named Person should have in clear focus, even in a trial?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

          Jerry McIver June 3, 2016 7:18 am Reply
          • If your government get results like this in a pilot scheme, where complacency should not enter the equation… how the hell can a government then justify rolling out such a scheme as a “catch all” … the only way to reduce these horrific crimes is

            a) more field social workers who do not have to operate in a “blame culture”… not family support specialists who are stuck in offices filling more governmental “tick the box, cover our arse bullshit paperwork”… investment not cut backs… and quit blaming our governments ineptitude on Westminster or austerity…
            B) sentencing as a deterrent that matchs the crime…

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

            Karl Hughes June 3, 2016 12:01 pm
  • The state has to provide protection for vulnerable children. The Named Person is a step in the right direction, although it needs to work at identifying dangers to the child and taking robust action quickly.
    Most parents love and protect their children, in fact they would give their own lives to save them, but it is a sad fact that when children are abused and sometimes killed, in more than half of these cases the parents are responsible or involved in the abuse.
    The Named Person needs to look at the parents as much as the child.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

    Murdoch MacKenzie June 2, 2016 1:25 am Reply
    • You’ve skipped the key issue here Murdoch.

      if you are telling e that without Named Person, nurses, doctors, carers, social workers, health visitors, teachers and head teachers will all turn a blind eye simply because they are not ‘Named Persons’ then not only do I think you are wrong, uut you are guilty of ignoring one of the key issues here.
      The first as I highlighted is why these cases all seem to slip through the net, despite many opportunities to identify abuse and tackle it.
      The second you have maybe unwittingly touched on – that Named Person will be used to target parents with disastrous consequences as time goes on. That’s not what the legislation is for and if it is uused in that way, which eventually it will, we have a very dangerouus prededent.

      Any parent reading this mmust accept that they will end up being the focus of attention from Named Persons who, rightly, do not want to be the one who has an abuse case against their name – lest they end up in jail,
      losing their job or just being investigated. Report everyone to keep youurself safe.

      That’s not hysterical paranoia as some wold have you believe – it’s the state enforcing a blame culture that is increasingly prevelant in this contry. But as I have stated, Named Person doesn’t actuually introduce ANY new safeguards for children beyond a fear culture that will affect every single parent.

      This legislation needs scrapped and a fresh approach by a cross party grouping. As no-one’s intentions are bad, this is a sensible, pragatic and positive suggestion.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

      JB June 2, 2016 7:41 am Reply
      • In these cases where the parents are the evil abusers, i.e. in over 50% of cases, the named person has to look at the parents when he suspects that the child is being harmed. Any innocent parent will want every avenue explored and would understand that they are one of these avenues.
        There is a lot of responsibility attached to the welfare of children. We know that doctors, nurses, nursery and school staff, etc. can all spot the signs that something is wrong but there has to be a single channel to collate all these signals before, as in this case, it is too late.
        I agree with you that a lot of work needs to be done to set this up properly, but it is possible to make this work, and correct that society does not turn its back on these innocent children to safeguard the privacy of their parents and guardians.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

        Murdoch MacKenzie June 2, 2016 8:52 am Reply
        • I agree with the fundamental point that there needs to be one ‘collection’ point. Too many times in the past vulnerable children or adults have slipped out of site because information on them is held by multiple sources and the dots are not properly joined up. This, for me, is one of the strengths of the ‘Named person’ act and is the reason I don’t think it should be entirely abandoned – there are clear strengths to it and I also firmly believe it has been brought in with absolutely the best of intent by all involved.
          However I am still to be convinced that the approach to have all children having a named person is the correct way to do it. I think a lot of money will be getting spent on administration staff costs to protect children who don’t need protecting – money that could be better channelled toward those who do need additional focus.
          I think fundamentally I agree with you Murdoch – it needs revisited as a policy to make sure it is implemented effectively and in a way that maximises the positive contribution it can bring. I’m not sure the current approach is going to achieve that.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

          Integrity? June 2, 2016 9:59 am Reply
          • In most cases, the term used is ‘slipped through the cracks’ (in the system).

            Fill the cracks. Find out what’s not working and fix it. A Named Person fixes nothing, it just adds a whole new level of bureaucracy that frankly we don’t need.

            We don’t need to assign a state guardian to every child – we need a clear path for ANYONE involved in a childs life to raise concerns confidentially but also know that the concern will be handled. Don’t get me wrong, that will not be perfect either, but it’s a far more workable solution that protected our rights to a private life.

            Our teachers, headteachers, nurses, doctors, carers all have enough on their plate without this level of responsibility – a responsibility that if they cannot discharge it properly through no fault of their own will leave them liable to all sorts.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

            JB June 2, 2016 7:31 pm
          • JB

            One of the things I think isn’t working is there being a central contact who ensures that all information/date/reports etc etc are brought together and considered in their totality so the level of risk or danger can be properly considered. To some extent I think the Named Person legislation is moving toward fixing that however I’m far from convinced it has to be a state appointed guardian (which is where I feel the legislation is going too far)and I certainly don’t think we need one for every child.

            Like a lot of policies there is good and bad in this one. Unfortunately I fear the bad in this one is going to drag down the good by making it too onerous and inefficient.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

            Integrity? June 3, 2016 8:52 am
  • The Anti Scottish Government sentiment on here is Palpable !
    What you worried about girls?
    Indi Ref 2 ?
    Ps. Want the real news ?
    Tune in to Nae Fear!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

    Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 8:18 pm Reply
  • AS rips RDS a new one on LBC!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 9:28 pm Reply
  • London don’t believe it’s sunny elsewhere cause their the centre of the universe ! I always knew they were as$h@les!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 9:31 pm Reply
  • Get the latest news from Nae Fear,nobodies fool and certainly not London Centric!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 9:32 pm Reply
  • Oli Mundell voted against his Faithers wishes on EU.
    He’s certain to get spanked!!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    Nae Fear Here June 2, 2016 9:33 pm Reply
  • What a sick person you are NFH. Here we are discussing the horrific murder of a small boy and what might help to prevent further similar tragedies and you seem to think it is a joke.

    Whilst I appreciate the principles of free speech on For Argyll, I feel you have crossed the line here and I would suggest that the site blocks your ISP from further connection to the site – you will not be missed.

    Alternatively, perhaps the creation of a Junk Postings file for such inanity might assuage FA’s passion for free speech.

    What do others think?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    JimB June 3, 2016 9:19 am Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *