Monday 28 March 2016


For thinking individuals, alarm bells should be ringing as soon as they recognise the involvement in the debate about Named Persons of prating religionists. People who put faith before facts and dogma before reason. People who hold absolute belief in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence to be the purpose and ultimate achievement of the human intellect.

People who have forsaken knowledge, reason and enlightenment in favour of medieval superstition, primitive fear and sectarian intolerance.

When considering the issue of child protection, who but a reckless fool would turn, in the expectation of a rational assessment of policy, to those who worship a deity notorious for its cruel and hateful attitude to children?

If this was not enough to set off those warning klaxons, take a look at who these religious zealots are associated with. Self-serving politicians interested only in scoring points against hated rivals. And irresponsible media mouthpieces interested only in flexing their manipulative muscles.

Were this not enough, even the most moderately intelligent person who has not completely relinquished the capacity to think for themselves should be deeply suspicious of the highly-coloured, blatantly pejorative and unashamedly emotive language deployed by those who, for whatever dubious reason, so vehemently oppose efforts to improve the effectiveness of systems and procedures intended to safeguard our children and young people.

Terms such as 'spies', 'snoopers', 'state guardians', and worse, have no place in serious discussion of child welfare policy. This is not the language of rational debate. This is the language of unreasoning fanaticism. This is not language intended to inform. It is language intended to inflame.

Such language is used to obscure rather than illuminate. We are entitled to wonder exactly what agenda this disreputable rabble are trying to conceal in a fog of grotesquely misleading rhetoric.


  1. Oh dear Peter....

    "Almost two-thirds of Scots parents believe the Scottish Government’s plans to appoint a “named person” for every child is “an unacceptable intrusion”, a new poll has found."

    Looks like this could be the SNP's poll tax moment.

    A step too far, with every family getting a state appointed snooper.

    It's not as though the NP scheme worked when it was tried out in the Isle of Man.

    As the SNP's policy is simply grossly intrusive....

    1. Oh dear! You've seriously embarrassed yourself now! You won't be aware, because I doubt if you ever read much beyond the headline, but that "survey" is a joke. The sample was around 180! And the questions were so biased and leading that I laughed for fully five minutes when I first read them.

      If it's any comfort, I only laughed for a few seconds at your stupidity.

  2. Is this the poll that featured 200 people? Maybe not a good basis to extrapolate 'almost two-thirds' of parents from.

    1. Fewer than 200, Jean. The whole thing was a farce. But it got a few knees jerking among the pathologically prejudiced and the terminally gullible.

  3. Bless Peter, what of this from that impeccably accurate source, Wings over Scotland!

    "Lynn Blair says:

    28 March, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    In addition to my comments earlier, a couple of other things to think about, regarding how ill thought through this legislation is.

    The legislation states that the NP is likely to be a health visitor if the child is under five, or a school/head/guidance teacher if the child is at school.

    Firstly, I lecture in FE and am often teaching 15-18 year olds. There has been no comment from the government regarding who will take the NP role in FE. None. No training has been provided.

    Most staff I work with have never heard of it. Those that I have spoken too are fairly incredulous that this is being brought in in August, yet there is nothing in place.

    Secondly, the NP is to be foisted on all children from birth to 18. It is feasible therefore for a married couple with a child, each to have their own Named Person. Three named people for one family.

    More absurdly, it is possible for a someone signing up for the armed forces to have a Named Person too. I’d love to be a fly on the wall as the Named Person fills in the form regarding the ‘well-being’ of someone about to be trained in warfare."

    But of course to Paraochial Pete and his wee chums, its all an 'Alarm' and to be dismissed as it's SNP policy and so nothing to be worried about, no sirree Bob!