FFS the twitter mob are trying to get some stupid campaign about boycotting Byron Burgers, because they were found to have employed a load of illegals (with false papers) and of course cooperated with the authorities when they came knocking.
Having utilised their services for many years.
#boycottbyron
Because they complied with law enforcement officers?
So if you say "It's a fair Cop" when caught you should just get off with it. Get them in the cells with their dodgy workers. Put off some of the other shady business types filling their pockets at the public expense.
Nick Earley Scottish Government's Named Persons policy unlawful, UK Supreme Court rules
What is this policy about?
Nationalising Children.
Basically if you have a child you get audited by the Social Workers five times a year (by them coming round your house and interrogating you) and every child is allocated their own social worker.
Basically the state owns them and parents have them under sufference.
Even the BNP have never come up with anything like that.
Unsurprisingly "Judges said the proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation"
You cannot be right in the head it is nothing at all like that you cretinous halfwitted turnip.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Yeah devolving road signs was a huge give, we should be grateful.
The problems identified in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the named persons legislation are pretty fundamental.
Essentially the Act requires a long list of professionals to share information (which may otherwise be confidential) with the named person who in turn has an obligation to disclose that information to other professionals who may be involved in the wellbeing of the child.
The provisions are found to be in breach of article 8 (protection of family life) because there is no duty to consult the child or the parents of the child before making such disclosures. The Act requires disclosure in many circumstances where the exceptions allowed by Article 8(2) would not apply.
The judgment did not find the provisions incompatible with the Data Protection Act but only because that Act and the EU Directive on which it is based continue to apply to the professionals notwithstanding the terms of the 2014 Act. There are repeated comments that this results in great confusion and uncertainty but it did not make the legislation itself technically incompetent. Anyone reading the explanation of how those provisions would have to work would be well advised to consider how this mess can be sorted out. For all practical purposes the law, as explained by the Supreme Court, requires professionals not to disclose confidential information except in the circumstances already permitted by the DPA.
The decision does not make having a named person for every child incompetent but well deprive that named person of most of their function for the majority of children. The Court are clear that this is not something that can be dealt with by guidance. It requires a change in the legislation and those changes will require the consent of the child or the parents to the disclosure of any confidential material except in extreme circumstances where the safety of the child might be at risk.
James Wolffe, our former Dean of Faculty, who represented the Scottish Ministers in the Supreme Court, is now the Lord Advocate. He is an extremely clever man. I very much hope the question of how this legislation is to be revised is left to him. The question of whether the legislation is a good idea remains a political question on which the Court, very properly, has expressed no view.
Comments
Essentially the Act requires a long list of professionals to share information (which may otherwise be confidential) with the named person who in turn has an obligation to disclose that information to other professionals who may be involved in the wellbeing of the child.
The provisions are found to be in breach of article 8 (protection of family life) because there is no duty to consult the child or the parents of the child before making such disclosures. The Act requires disclosure in many circumstances where the exceptions allowed by Article 8(2) would not apply.
The judgment did not find the provisions incompatible with the Data Protection Act but only because that Act and the EU Directive on which it is based continue to apply to the professionals notwithstanding the terms of the 2014 Act. There are repeated comments that this results in great confusion and uncertainty but it did not make the legislation itself technically incompetent. Anyone reading the explanation of how those provisions would have to work would be well advised to consider how this mess can be sorted out. For all practical purposes the law, as explained by the Supreme Court, requires professionals not to disclose confidential information except in the circumstances already permitted by the DPA.
The decision does not make having a named person for every child incompetent but well deprive that named person of most of their function for the majority of children. The Court are clear that this is not something that can be dealt with by guidance. It requires a change in the legislation and those changes will require the consent of the child or the parents to the disclosure of any confidential material except in extreme circumstances where the safety of the child might be at risk.
James Wolffe, our former Dean of Faculty, who represented the Scottish Ministers in the Supreme Court, is now the Lord Advocate. He is an extremely clever man. I very much hope the question of how this legislation is to be revised is left to him. The question of whether the legislation is a good idea remains a political question on which the Court, very properly, has expressed no view.