kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. M, ha, quite.

Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

Ditto. I prefer to still refer to them informally as the Law Lords (since that was an informal term anyway)

John_M said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. M, ha, quite.

Evil British Supreme Court.

[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].

Ditto. I prefer to still refer to them informally as the Law Lords (since that was an informal term anyway)

I quite liked Owen's idea of a Ministry of Labour. It has a muscular yet retro sound to it. We should definitely bring back the Law Lords. I browsed through the list of defunct Government departments, and would also like to see:

The Ministry of Power
The Ministry of Production
The War Office [Now with added nukes!]
The Northern Department

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

weejonnie said:

runnymede said:

MaxPB said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

It's a disgrace when law breakers are held to account! (Well, that's more or less the Greens line):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/27/immigration-raid-on-byron-hamburgers-rounds-up-30-workers

To put any blame on the company it in a way even worse. What do people expect them to do? Block the plod / immigration officials? As a legitimate company (selling over priced burgers) they have to do fully cooperate.

Well can you imagine the headlines if they decided not to comply? "Byron facing millions in fines for hiring illegal workers, directors facing prison". The outrage bus is full, as always, is full of virtue signalling fools.

I'm not sure that setting up a fake training day doesn't go above and beyond compliance with the law. If the American election teaches us anything, it is that both sides can be pretty ropey.

So the imirectors? Mad.

They should be heavily fined in any case.

I wonder how many other sets of 'false papers' are circulating in London, and how much effort employers like this make to check them.

Are you do?

Uttering False Coin. The outrage.

Wasn't so long ago you got disemboweled alive for that as it was deemed as High Treason.

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

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.

That is utter bollocks.

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

I do like the BBC headline quote from Obama's speech: 'We'll carry Clinton to victory'. While fine in context, given despite her having some fans we all know some on the left are less than enthusiastic about her, I cannot help but read it as 'We'll carry her to victory, because god knows she won't get there without us carrying her'.

That's how I read it, too.

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I cannot be expected to be familiar with historical events so vulgarly recent as to practically be current affairs.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I cannot be expected to be familiar with historical events so vulgarly recent as to practically be current affairs.

So by my reckoning your knowledge is limited to stuff before 4004 BC

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I cannot be expected to be familiar with historical events so vulgarly recent as to practically be current affairs.

So by my reckoning your knowledge is limited to stuff before 4004 BC

Before the time of creation?!

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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

GIN1138 said:

Have we hard how Alistair Meeks and his partner are doing?

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Gin, not recently. There was an update (unsure if you saw it) that things were progressing positively at that time, but it was a few days or maybe even a week or two ago.

Pulpstar said:

GIN1138 said:

Have we hard how Alistair Meeks and his partner are doing?

I haven't heard anything.

Fingers crossed for them both

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.

I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.

Slightly skeptical !!!! .....they are utter bullshit. There is no doubt lots of people are out of work, but even when the economy was storming ahead 12% were supposedly unemployed.

They are about as reliable as reports on average earnings of Greeks.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Alistair said:

T

"Families will be under “surveillance” as new Government guidance reveals that health visitors will make a record 11 home visits to monitor not just the health and development of a baby, but also a range of personal details about parents, including finances and mental health.

Under the Named Person scheme health visitors will also act as a Named Person for 0 – 5s, and this latest 64-page document published last week discloses an extensive checklist by which families should be ‘assessed’ during the visits.

The Scottish Government’s £41.6 million Universal Health Visiting Pathway Scotland: Pre-Birth to Pre-School programme sets out a strict schedule of 8 visits within the child’s first year and 3 between 13 months and 5 years, with each visit lasting up to an hour and a half."

A NO2NP spokesman said: “Much of this is gobbledygook. But, alongside the talk of ‘Health Plan Indicators’, ‘salutogenic approaches’ and ‘human ecology’, some things come through loud and clear.

“Firstly, this calls itself a surveillance programme – how could 11 visits by the age of four with questions about family finance, TV time and sun cream use be considered anything else?

“Following this guidance threatens to turn health visitors into family managers. And health visitors will be typing up a wide range of extremely private information into a state database.

“Secondly, consent is not required for information sharing with or by a Named Person to promote ‘wellbeing’, even where there is a duty of confidentiality. The document says consent shouldn’t even be sought in case it’s refused and the parent-health visitor relationship is damaged. Fundamental principles of consent are being thrown aside, which is what we’ve been saying all along is part and parcel of the Named Person scheme.”.

Liz Smith MSP said: “This completely undermines the trust within family relationships and is exactly the reason for the increasing fears about the Named Person and the nanny state.”

Theresa Fyffe, Director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said the plan would “help children and their families get support if they need it”, but added: “However, we have significant concerns about implementing the Named Person scheme.”

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.

I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.

Fewer inactive people surely.

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

Scottish Gov't has 42 days to amend it's named person policy. Given it passed by a wide margin the first time round I expect the Gov't will amend the legislation rather than scrapping it.

A wide margin? It was unanimous ( with the Conservatives 'doing a Labour ' and abstaining)

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.

I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.

Fewer inactive people surely.

Interestingly, Spain has a higher employment ratio than Italy - yet has an unemployment rate twice Italy's level.

felix said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Agreed. Sadly.

I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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

Yes, I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I think separation will actually be good for all of us... We'll probably have much better relations post Scottish independence than we do right now. It will ease many of the tensions north and south of the border.

runnymede said:

It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.

The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.


-------------------------------------------------------

It's a pretty sinister piece of legislation, by any standards.

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.

I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Alistair said:

T

It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.

The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, I never said that! [My pen name is Thaddeus White].

The Chinese have a nice saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.

The idea of ever closer union is demented. It bears no relation to mankind's psychology or history. If we acted on a purely rational basis, devoid of sentiment, we'd have everyone in the world fed, watered and kept in a state of sound accommodation. But we're apes. Not angels.

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

Pulpstar said:

oxfordsimon said:

Pulpstar said:

"Judges say some 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."

Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)

I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.

felix said:

kle4 said:

felix said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

John_M said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Agreed. Sadly.

I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.

Figures may be tight, but the reasons support for Indy are so high, the sense of difference between the realms which is exaggerated but felt honestly, the lack of willingness to give and take in the Union on all sides, I don't see that going away, and chances are it will only increase.

I was against it previously, but we needed some sort of Federal system some while ago.

Ah yes - agreed on the Federalism just not sure Scotland would vote for full blown independence for the sake of staying in the EU. It makes no sense.

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

runnymede said:

It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.

The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.


-------------------------------------------------------

It's a pretty sinister piece of legislation, by any standards.

If only we had evidence of how the scheme works in practice.

'Scottish Tory council has run 'Named Person' scheme for 5 years without problems'

http://tinyurl.com/gljwqgh

Yes but the issue is how "compulsory" the scheme is - not whether a scheme could provide benefits to some people..

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

If you make it hard to collect unemployment benefit, you get fewer people registering as unemployed!

Our employment rate is 58%, which is the same as the US and Germany's, worse than Canada, the Netherlands or Switzerland, and better than France, Italy and Spain.

Pulpstar said:

oxfordsimon said:

Pulpstar said:

"Judges say some 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."

Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)

I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.

MaxPB said:

John_M said:

chestnut said:

The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.

We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.

I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.

Pulpstar said:

"Judges say some 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."

NEW THREAD NEW THREAD

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

"Atul Hatwal"

Don't go putting any money on this...

Yes, it looks like bollocks to me. Whilst Bercow might well be concerned at the breakdown of normal parliamentary process which arises from Labour's civil war, what can he actually do about it even if wanted to and felt it was appropriate to do something? There is no other party with sufficient MPs to constitute an alternative opposition.

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.

I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.

Casino_Royale said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Alistair said:

T

It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.

The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.

Very, very few people are going to be hired to be Named Persons. In the vast majority of cases it will be existing health visitors , social workers ot head teachers.

It is simply an exercise to unify the otherwise disconnected groups that might be informed about problems a child moght be having to avoid 'why was his obvious warning sign missed ' style situations .

Councils across the country (from Tory run Ayrshire to the Highlands and Islands) already run the scheme.

MaxPB said:

Hmm, the employment rate is 74.5% for 16-65, I doubt it is that much lower for all people 16 and above, where do you get 58% from?

Casino_Royale said:

No. It's the responsibility of parents and families to keep children safe.

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Blimey

Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006

Formally, who actually appoints the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Pulpstar said:

"Judges say some 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."

The State has a responsibility for keeping children safe. I don't think there's a problem with the State nominating a single contact with responsibility for the child's welfare. The problem with this legislation is that this person can act arbitrarily (ie without any specific cause for concern) and can interview the child without the agreement or knowledge of the parent, nor are they obliged to justify any actions they take to the parent. If they deal with these points, it should be OK.

I thought it inevitable this legislation would be struck down under Article 8 of the ECHR. I would have been surprised the government went ahead with it, except they have the arrogance of an untrammelled majority.

No. It's the responsibility of parents and families to keep children safe.