Opposition joy at end of Named Person plan is simply disgraceful

Particularly revolting, however, is their seizing on the abandonment of the Named Person scheme as “another SNP failure” and demanding apologies for its introduction. Let’s be clear on this: they’re demanding penitence and apology for the first-ever coherent attempt to guard children from harm, and to establish mechanisms to take action when they are seen or suspected to be suffering from or at risk of maltreatment: how perverted is that?

When the scheme was first introduced, multiple voices were raised against it, on the classic “snooper’s charter” lines; but the protective intention of the scheme largely focused on children in the care and control of non-related adults, from nurseries up through schools and into colleges. Over 40 years ago, when I started teaching, and ever since then, there has been an evident need for such a mechanism: I say “evident” because again and again, cases have emerged of exploitation and abuse of children (predominantly girls) by the very adults charged with protecting them from any harm during the working day. Only months ago a guidance teacher – a guidance teacher – was jailed in England for seducing four underage girls, and it’s not at all hard to find other such cases stretching back as far as you care to go, either side of the Border.

In my own case, from time to time I saw things that aroused varying degrees of suspicion that some of my “colleagues” neither understood nor accepted the boundaries that have to govern dealings with pupils; then and since, I’ve had reason to know or suspect that some of them did sexually exploit girls in their charge. From the outset, however (and especially when I was new to the job and trying to learn the ropes), there was no clear route to raising concerns, and especially no sign at all that there was (or is) any set mechanism for restoring the girl’s safety and, even more disgracefully, for ensuring the perpetrator answered for their crime and was effectively excluded from any chance to repeat their offences.

In fact (and I’m sure many other past and present teachers can attest to this) the general practice of the employer was to move the offender to another school – where, with dreary inevitability, they would simply start again on a new selection of victims. One such, I gather, was “escorted off the premises” of his last hunting-ground just a year or so ago. The routine official response was a sort of “pass the smelly parcel, before it bursts open”. Possibly the most perverse aspect of this practice was (and almost certainly still is) that offenders were encouraged to go for promotion out of the area, and given golden references, to pass the parcel into somebody else’s hands – but also and of course thereby giving them access to an ever-widening pool of victims. School authorities haven’t, of course, been the only ones to adopt this dodge; but that makes it no less evil.

Regardless of the legality or otherwise of the perpetrator’s manipulations (at least until the recent raising of the age of consent in relation to pupils and teachers), what happens and has happened to these victims must bend their lives out of shape, land them with a load of humiliating embarrassment they’ll never get rid of. That’s unforgivable: teenagers are going to be stupid, naive and gullible (which is of course how they can so easily be conned and exploited); it goes with the territory. No adult charged with their safety and welfare has any such excuse. That any perverted exploiter can get into a school at all, in any capacity, is mainly the fault of inadequate screening processes, although Disclosure and Barring Service (formerly CRB) checks may have gone some way to improving that phase.

However, once in the system, there must then be an effective procedure to get rid of those who crawled their way through the net. If there had been a safeguarding system when I began teaching, someone definite to go to with my concerns and evidence, and a strict procedure for acting on concerns instead of a frantic resort to cover-up, then at least one perpetrator (out of the six I can count over my time in one school) might have been stopped from continuing his depredations, as well as serving as a warning to other would-be offenders. The Named Person scheme could, and should, have been at least a beginning on that road. That it has been balked, for whatever reasons, is a matter for regret to all of us and shame to the blockers. All credit then to John Swinney for trying to create a rigorous means to protect our most precious resource. For those who for political motives pretend he ought to apologise for this, when it is such an urgent necessity, I can have nothing but burning contempt.
Colin Stuart
Saline, Fife

I HAVE no words to describe how I feel watching opposition MSPs in Holyrood gloating and laughing that the Named Person framework will not now be made law.

Words like “state-appointed guardian” and “snoopers” have been misused by opponents of this scheme to create fear and distrust.

A Named Person is a single point of contact. Not a snooper or a guardian.

This framework underpins all work with children and families in Highland and has been used here successfully for more than 10 years.

This framework places children and families at the centre of any process and ensures their voice is heard.

It provides a robust framework for families to raise a grievance should they feel their needs have not been met.

It places greater accountability on professionals to meet the needs of children and families.

This is about protecting and giving voice to the most vulnerable in our society.

Shame on any MSP who showed delight that this will not be enshrined in law.
Liz Kraft
Strathpeffer, Highland

A BUCKINGHAM Palace source has said that former UK prime minister David Cameron’s disclosures that he sought help from the Queen ahead of the Scottish independence vote in 2014 have “caused displeasure”. However, many citizens will be pleased because it is further evidence that the country needs a written constitution.

But this episode, in the recent list of deviations to the country’s unwritten constitutional norms, should not be downplayed. In my opinion it was more than an aberrational “raising of the eyebrow” by Her Majesty.

Other aspects to be considered are the stage management of the woman questioner and media reporters strategically placed outside Crathie Kirk, where the Queen attends Sunday services while at Balmoral, when the Queen gave the seemingly heartfelt and personal observation that the Scottish people should “think carefully about the future”.
Geoff Naylor
Winchester

QUITE a revelation from Dave Boy that he got the unelected head of state to get involved with the democratic process during Indyref1.

News is that the Queen is upset by Dave Boy revealing this, but I doubt it is anything compared to the feeling of betrayal felt by voters here in Scotland.

Does anyone else think that we should now be pressing our political leaders to get us out of this corrupt, twisted, elitist Union?

We have always been told that our unelected head of state is neutral on political matters and yet the complete opposite appears to be the case.

So just to recap, we have the second largest unelected chamber in the world, we have a Prime Minister who can close down Parliament apparently whenever he wants and an unelected head of state who gets to interfere as and when the Etonians see fit.

We are not in a democracy at all, it has all been a lie, a tall tale, a fabrication constructed by the establishment to pacify the plebs.

This call sign is now through with the monarchy – there is absolutely no place for it in a democracy.

Time now for Nicola to use the mandate and get us the hell out of this cesspit of a union.

Tick tock...
Cliff Purvis
Army Veteran

THE First Minister said Unionist jeers showed they were running scared of indyref2 (The National, September 20).

Having watched many debates in Holyrood and at party conferences, I have concluded that we must be thankful that the Tories, Labour and the LibDems in the devolved Holyrood Parliament are members of branches of London-based Unionist parties that will not be eligible to participate in the parliament or government of an independent Scotland.

An independent country with new Scotland-based, controlled and funded parties, whose members are answerable to the people, who want Scotland to succeed in every field, would be rid of the total negativity of the current London-based, controlled and funded opposition whose members answer primarily to their party HQ.

Can you imagine the boost for Scotland when it has a parliament where the opposition tackles the government because it feels that its own proposals have more to offer the people of Scotland than those of the government, instead of the current situation where the opposition is tasked to belittle Scotland at every opportunity and oppose everything proposed by the Scottish Government?
John Jamieson
South Queensferry

THE Chinese government has told citizens in Tibet they could face up to eight years in prison if caught sharing illegal content on a popular communications app called WeChat.

The government warned citizens that groups with 10 or more members are under constant surveillance and users shouldn’t risk sharing sensitive content in them. Publication of illegal material could mean a prison sentence of between one and eight years. Government officials were giving “compulsory training” to 248 Tibetan WeChat group administrators in Zeku County, Tibet Autonomous Region.

The list of ten rules are: 1) Don’t share sensitive political information.

2) Don’t believe and send rumours.

3) Don’t share internal documents.

4) Don’t send pornography or content with drugs and explosions.

5) Don’t share information related to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao 6) Don’t share military information.

7) Don’t share secret intelligence about the state.

8) Don’t participate in any form of unverified fundraising.

9) Don’t engage in small democratic programmes or canvassing.

10) Obey the Chinese law.

There are cameras at every corner, including in monasteries, phones are monitored, spies are everywhere. Orwell’s 1984 is in action.
B McKenna
Dumbarton: Free Tibet