Friday 10 May 2013

Scotland The Brave ... Or Brave New Scotland? Guest Post

click to enlarge
A guest post by Sheila.

In October 2010, Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review (possibly the only real journalist left in Scotland) began a long running series on the surveillance nightmare that is Big Brother Scotland and I began to collate his articles and other related coverage on this forum thread.  

Earlier this month, the Scottish Nazi Party published the draft Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill which will give this Blairite, surveillance-in-the-guise-of-child-protection, e-government agenda statutory weight.

The Scottish Review articles caused quite a stushie - Scottish Government web pages were suddenly marked “archived” - yet nobody in the MSM recycled Kenneth’s lengthy series of articles ( strange as this is a pretty regular occurrence). Predictably, MSM coverage of the draft legislation (from the telly to the local rag) has headlined as increased free nursery provision, the main agenda kept very much in the shadows...

EVERY child is to have their “wellbeing” (as defined by  ever-expanding “SHANARRI” indicators) recorded by a state-employed “named person” (who cannot be their parent). Those found to be at risk of not achieving their state defined ,Curriculum for Excellence,  outcomes (see the outside of the wheel) will be selected for the appropriate early intervention. 

click to enlarge

Despite the demise of eCare (at great public expense) due to some adverse publicity, these vast data sets are still to be shared electronically within and across agency boundaries”.

What of the Data Protection Act? Well the ICO has got rid of that that little “barrier” with this update on Information Sharing Between Services in Respect of Children and Young People.

The content of the ICO’s update fits neatly with this recent study :

The Children and Young Person Bill will negate any requirement for consent prior to information sharing about a risk to a child’s well-being.”

The study found little awareness of the likely duties to be imposed on Local authorities and Health Boards by the Children and Young Persons Bill due in 2015. All public bodies will be required to share any information that they have, which may indicate a risk to a child’s well-being. In effect this introduces a threshold where information must be shared far below that which is currently regarded as Child Protection.”

The GIRFEC focus on early and effective intervention requires information to be shared with a child’s Named Person at the first sign of risk to well-being far in advance of Child Protection measures. Alerts relating to child protection could be expanded to meet the requirements of the Children and Young Persons Bill and the scope altered to include well-being concerns.”

Clear Enough? There isn't a child in Scotland who won't have multiple “risks” to their wellbeing as defined by the SHANARRI indicators

As the Assistant Commissioner for Scotland (UK ICO) also states in his update that “obtaining consent can be difficult and it should only be sought when the individual has real choice over the matter,” not only will information be shared  routinely without consent but parents need not even be asked for it.

Even without the blatant social engineering and unacceptable data rape, this is a very dangerous game to be playing. Who will have access to this data, legitimately or otherwise? What types are most likely to target it ? And how can it possibly be secure?

From the  ridiculous sounding notion that the NHS Highland needs to know about every guinea pig , to the positively sinister parental capacity to provide well-being assessments being carried out by midwives in Lanarkshire, this has to be stopped. Now.

I’m generally not a fan of online petitions but they can be a useful tool.This one calls upon every Member of the Scottish Parliament to ‘get it right’ and reject Girfec surveillance and a named person for every child in Scotland.

More signatures means more clout to shame MSPs  into reading beyond the briefing papers  they are spoonfed.

More importantly, via the social media, this petition is publicising the Girfec agenda and its implications far and wide.


pa_broon74 said...

While I agree with the thrust of the post, I don't think using such inflammatory terms as the Scottish Nazi Party are going to do your cause any favours.

I despise this kind of state-sponsored meddling almost as much as I despise being manipulated by such intemperate language.

If you swapped 'nanny' for 'Nazi' you'd have a more attractive point.

Sheila said...

Point taken Pa Broon bt to my mind this is a lot more than nannying.

I'm sick of Salmond et al pushing through essentially Blairite policies:

"‘This one about identifying troublesome children in the foetus – this is eugenics, the sort of thing Hitler talked about’ commented Tony Benn at the time - a step too far even for a fellow Fabian it would seem."

Bugger le Panda said...


I can't believe you let this article be posted on your blog in this form.

Godwin's Law is to the effect that the first person in a debate or argument uses the term Nazi loses the debate by default.

The author, Sheila, jumped right in and designated, the democratically elected party of government of Scotland as the Scottish Nazi Party and in bold typeface, just in case we missed it.

This is at a time when unionist supporters are describing independence posters as scum , nazis and anti democratic.

After that slur I lost the will to read what you had written. Boom, BIG OWN GOAL!

There well be many good and serious points written after that unnecessary slur, but most people will be like me and not bother to find out. It was just a rant, rthey will say.

I am surprised that R let you write that bit, as I am sure she would have read your proposal and given her experience to the reaction.

As I said above, BIG OWN GOAL.

Clarinda said...

Beat me to it - IBSU - with Godwin's Law. Such a shame as there may well be suspect interference and mandatory action from unsolicited 'services' into family life.

As often happens there are probably genuine cases that require professional and competent well-funded practice to identify, protect and nurture child at risk - but to use a thumping great hammer to treat all children and families with the same degree of inquistition and, what appears to be - assumed guilt - until some operative decides otherwise, is overbearing and unacceptable in a democracy.

I have no problem with a genuine determination and discreet professional judgement to practice prevention - but this ersatz, high-handed and coercive enforcement is made even more worrying when the thought of what may be unsubstantiated private and innocent family details are open to potential exploitation via the great electronic highway.

The usual effect of the 'blanket approach' often results in those who ought to be identified becoming masked by the bureaucracy of the paper exercise thus rendering the system and process redundant - e.g. so many people now wear Hi-Viz clothing - that they have become invisible! This paper exercise does, however, give lots of jobs to admin and operatives.

"Nazi" and "rape" are terms that should not be used when seeking measured redress - although I appreciate the writers obvious alarm.

Sheila said...

Watch the Blair video linked to in my previous comment. The same agenda is being progressed regardless of which lot are "in power".

"Left-wing"/"right-wing", unionist/nationalist, it matters not a whit (as the rest of the post illustrates).

Stewart Cowan said...

Except that when you act like Nazis, Godwin's Law most certainly does not apply. Is that too difficult to understand?

Anyone interested in this society will have read to the end and will act on it.

You, IBSU, can go in the huff and do nothing like 95% of the population.

Like they did in Nazi Germany, in fact.

pa_broon74 said...

I'm not a fan of this Godwin's Law thing, it detracts from the salient point with which I happen to agree, quite strongly as it happens.

In that regard I'm already won over. What you won't do is win over any more support because the kind of people you want to convince are the moderates who'll be scared away by such scary language - not to mention people who voted for the SNP.

Its chopping off your nose to spite your face.

It might be more satisfying to give vent to frustrations by deploying such language, in the longer term - it'll not win you any converts. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, what do you want to achieve? Personal satisfaction or more support for your cause.

earthtracer said...

The ONLY thing in this post i totally disagree with is Sheila's use of the term Nazi - most un-Sheila like, I have to say, and it does detract from the rest because people focus on it instead of the horror unveiled to us. Don't be distracted. The system being set in place is vile and very dangerous.

JRB said...

A good point poorly made.

Fully concur with pa_broon74, IBSU and Clarinda’s comments.

keep looking up said...

This Bill stems from the UNCRC (UN Convention on the rights of a child) and predates Blair by a decade. The UK signed it in 1989 I think.
People deride the UN as incompetent at their peril. It's a creepy organisation that is following it's Agenda 21 programme towards a one world government with stealth and cunning. Targeting and labelling us from cradle to grave.
If you read the SNP Bill you will find UNCRC all over it.

keep looking up said...

Yes I was correct....

UNCRC everywhere on the Bill. Good little SNP 'just obeying orders'...

Sheila said...

Thanks for all the thoughtful and helpful comments everyone.

Apologies for being brief but I'm away atm - back tomorrow evening sometime hopefully...

I'd use the same or similar "inflammatory" language regardless of which party were "in charge".

My sole aim is to draw attention to this Bill and other related issues.

I find the Blair e-government agenda and that particular video a good starting point but agree wrt UNCRC.

Anonymous said...

Te use of the word NAZI to describe a democratically elected government is an affront to all those people who actually did experience living and dying under the real NAZI's in the 1930's and 1940's.

They would tell you that there is absolutely no comparison between that NAZI party and today's Scots government and the writer should be utterly ashamed of themselves for using the term NAZI to describe the SNP government of Scotland.

It would have been perfectly easy for someone who is literate to express their outrage at something without resorting to such ill-judged language in their diatribe.

subrosa said...

Just to let everyone know I don't edit guest posts unless requested.

While I didn't think the word Nazi was entirely appropriate, I see it was used in the context of eugenics. It was perhaps an unfortunate word to apply, but it shouldn't detract from the essence of the post.

Millie Craigo said...

I do not believe the analogy is too extreme in the face of such an unprecedented extreme threat to all children and families in Scotland. GIRFEC is already being implemented in practice without statutory basis, to the detriment of law abiding families who do not wish their children's lives to be scrutinised and dissected by state snoopers.

Recent subject access requests made by law abiding parents who have been doorstepped by uninvited Nosy Parkers have returned records which include damning value judgments on lawful parenting choices which betray deep rooted prejudices and, in many cases, complete ignorance of the law.

The line about ensuring a child has an 'advocate' to navigate services (who cannot be the parent, remember!) which is being touted
relentlessly by the govt and its children's charity cheerleaders (who all have a financial vested interest) is designed to mislead parents into believing that a Named Person is simply a point of contact when in reality there will be NO OPT OUT FROM THIS DE FACTO COMPULSORY SERVICE (with apologies for shouting).

Furthermore, no express informed consent will be required to gather and share every piece of information (from total trivia to highly sensitive personal data) about every child and parent as well as associated adults (not just those who have indicated they need or want to access services or facilities and are, for various reasons, not able or competent to do so directly). All this with a view to making and escalating 'interventions' according to 'wellbeing indicators', which are defined not by the parent but by the state, and which fall well below the established threshold for child protection inquiries when consent can lawfully and uncontentiously overriden.

Such measures represent a radical departure from the principles enshrined in the Data Protection Act, the Children (Scotland) Act and the ECHR, which means that certain aspects of the proposed legislation are beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore open to legal challenge.

The fact that the Scottish Government (whose Ministers actively opposed ID cards and might have been assumed by voters to be similarly opposed to a national identity register for children and, by association, most adults) has
seen fit to foist this EU driven agenda on its citizens is bound to inform the future voting intentions of those of us who value civil liberties while also fully supporting a robust system for the protection of *vulnerable* children. This Bill certainly fails to reassure me on either count.

I congratulate Subrosa on opening up this debate on her blog, a debate the mainstream media have been at pains to swerve (with the exception of some excellent analysis by Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review). Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

subrosa said...

Thank you Millie for your contribution. I'm sure Sheila will respond when she's able.

Sheila said...

As we hurtle towards global totalitarianism, I become increasingly ashamed of the leading role Scotland is playing.

I'm only "picking" on the SNP because they're "in power". The last lot of "democratically" elected parasitic puppets were just as bad.

What kind of democracy do we have when the MSM and our elected members keep us distracted, chattering and arguing about safe topics while the real agendas are progressed behind the scenes unhindered by the pantomime that is party, and "independence" politcs?

Girfec is only a part of the nightmarish new system of surveillance, monitoring and control, but a very important one.

Scotland is also ahead of the game when it comes to other implementing other related global policies eg putting into policy the Stiglitz Report (which ties in with Agenda 21) and the new system of government needed to support this (apologies for the old link):

The mountain of joined-up "wellbeing" information harvested by Girfec provides only a wee part of the data required...

Thanks for the comments and to those who have signed the petition.

Sheila said...

Thank you Millie for illustrating how Girfec is harming real families even before it has statutory basis. This can only get worse...

I am encouraged that there may be mileage in a legal challenge.

Sheila said...

Forgot to thank Subrosa for "allowing a variety of opinions". Forums such as this are becoming increasingly valuable.

And yes, eugenics are intrinsic to all this as the de facto parenting licences in Lanarkshire illustrate.

Unknown said...

All the more reason we are experiencing such an increased demand for leak detection. Interesting post, thanks for sharing.

subrosa said...

Thanks for commenting Hailey. Sheila will appreciate it too.

Related Posts with Thumbnails