Sharon Shoesmith

[strange6]

She wins her appeal against the sacking over the Baby P Case. Quite frankly, she was made a scapegoat for political reasons over poor baby p's death but then again, she was being paid an obscene amount of money for running a department that was incompetent to say the least. Don't know which side I'm on here but, due to how bad that department was, I favour her sacking. I feel it could have been done better though.

 

[SS4]

To me it's not the fact she was sacked but the manner in which she was sacked. It was obvious she was made a political scapegoat due to the media circus around the Baby P case when surely she could have been sacked for incompetence.

The council have screwed up here, they'll find it virtually impossible to sack her now for whatever reason.

 

[strange6]

To me it's not the fact she was sacked but the manner in which she was sacked. It was obvious she was made a political scapegoat due to the media circus around the Baby P case when surely she could have been sacked for incompetence.

The council have screwed up here, they'll find it virtually impossible to sack her now for whatever reason.

She no longer works for the council. She is, as she says, now unemployable and a hate figure. She'll get hundreds of thousands, if not more, in compensation.

 

[SS4]

She no longer works for the council. She is, as she says, now unemployable and a hate figure. She'll get hundreds of thousands, if not more, in compensation.

I was under the impression it was unfair dismissal and they'd have to reinstate or transfer her.
She does bring up an excellent point though, she is a hate figure and unemployable in this country at least. I would like to see the media pay any compensation that is due since it is they who have reaped the profits, they who have rendered her a hate figure without fully presenting the fact and they who have forced her out of a job

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think something has gone very wrong when you watch yourself being sacked on TV. That just isn't right.

 

[strange6]

I think something has gone very wrong when you watch yourself being sacked on TV. That just isn't right.

I agree. Much as she deserved sacking for running an inept department, it should have been done by the proper route.

 

[Ferret]

She no longer works for the council. She is, as she says, now unemployable and a hate figure. She'll get hundreds of thousands, if not more, in compensation.

Ah yes, and who will pick up the bill for that?!

 

[strange6]

Ah yes, and who will pick up the bill for that?!

Ed Balls by rights! Me and you most probably!

 

[Ferret]

Ed Balls by rights! Me and you most probably!

Well quite! Tbh, it's a bit simplistic to be solely blaming Ed Balls though - the media as well were desperate for a scalp and alas Ed Balls fell nicely into the trap and chose to give it them on live TV. Was he right to sack her? Abso****inglutely.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well quite! Tbh, it's a bit simplistic to be solely blaming Ed Balls though - the media as well were desperate for a scalp and alas Ed Balls fell nicely into the trap and chose to give it them on live TV. Was he right to sack her? Abso****inglutely.

Did he do it in the correct manner? No. That is where the problem lies. Nobody should have to watch their sacking live on TV, and nobody should have 2 million people knowing that before the person involved does.

 

[Ferret]

Did he do it in the correct manner? No. That is where the problem lies. Nobody should have to watch their sacking live on TV, and nobody should have 2 million people knowing that before the person involved does.

I agree completely - Balls was sucked into the media storm and played the politics game unfortunately. You could argue a man of supposed intelligence should have known better I suppose...

Still - doubtless the incompetent person named in the title of this thread will now get a huge settlement from our taxes. While I agree she was wrongfully dismissed in terms of procedure, I fail to see why we should give her a comfortable early retirement. We have a terrible culture of reward for failure in this country...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A figure of half a million pounds was referred to on the BBC Breakfast television show this morning. I am not sure of her age, but if the amount quoted is true, this would cover her living expenses for many years to come.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why not blame the terrible parents? They are after all the scumbags who started all this...

 

[Ferret]

Why not blame the terrible parents? They are after all the scumbags who started all this...

There is that. Quite a sorry tale all round isn't it?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Whilst the parents are wholly responsible, there were serious, unacceptable failings within the department. The government's refusal to support social services will only make it worse.

 

[passmore]

Whilst the parents are wholly responsible, there were serious, unacceptable failings within the department. The government's refusal to support social services will only make it worse.

But surely if you had a child you would want to know why the social services 'failed unacceptably' with Baby P? This whole 'someone else has to be blamed' other than the parents is, to me, not the right way to go about getting proper justice for Baby P.
Ms Shoesmith has accepted responsibility for the mishandling of the case, but should she apologise? Is she culpable? We can't firmly say yes or no because we don't know the full facts, especially why did the department fail Baby P? Why were crucial signs missed?
The 'lynch mob' mentality of those that want blood beyond Baby P's parents highlights just how emotive this whole case is. I doubt we would've seen a similar reaction had the child been older.

 

[HST Power]

I am becoming increasingly worried about the state of social services. Far too often are we hearing stories of how children are being starved, assaulted and abused despite the fact that their names are on the 'at risk' register and that social workers have visited them on a regular basis.

Whilst I agree that the sacking was improperly carried out, I don't think she should still have her job. As far as I know, she hasn't even apologized. I'm not going to go into the details of the Baby P case, because for one that's not the topic of this thread and two I don't want to get on my high horse, but the case was absolutely appalling and the behavior of the so called 'parents' was disgusting.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Social services have far too much work for far too little staff. HST Power has identified some problems above, and let me assure you, there are many many more. This contributed to the sad case of Peter Conolley. Sharon Shoesmith was the head of a failing department, and has to take some of the blame for the outcome. However, this was not done in the right way.

 

[Ferret]

Social services have far too much work for far too little staff. HST Power has identified some problems above, and let me assure you, there are many many more. This contributed to the sad case of Peter Conolley. Sharon Shoesmith was the head of a failing department, and has to take some of the blame for the outcome. However, this was not done in the right way.

I agree completely with this, but have a question to pose. If we accept that Shoesmith had to go and the right outcome was reached given the circumstances, is it right that Ed Balls failing to follow procedures costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to compensate somebody who was clearly incompetent?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I agree completely with this, but have a question to pose. If we accept that Shoesmith had to go and the right outcome was reached given the circumstances, is it right that Ed Balls failing to follow procedures costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds to compensate somebody who was clearly incompetent?

I think the right outcome was reached in the wrong way. If it had been done properly, then there wouldn't have been the media effectively beating down her front door, for which, I think compensation is appropriate for the way she was shoved through it all. Whether or not loss of earnings is appropriate, I don't know.

 

[passmore]

Social services have far too much work for far too little staff. HST Power has identified some problems above, and let me assure you, there are many many more. This contributed to the sad case of Peter Conolley. Sharon Shoesmith was the head of a failing department, and has to take some of the blame for the outcome. However, this was not done in the right way.

But why was it allowed to contribute to his death and how do you know so assuredly? If Ms Shoesmith was sacked, how do people know that there wouldn't be any more cases like Baby P?

You're listing the failings like OFSTED: attaching known 'failings' like 'starving of children' without elaborating on how these failings were allowed to happen and why they were allowed to happen. I'm not disputing that there have been cases like HST Power has highlighted, but if you're not prepared to question, you cannot hope for change within our social services.

Making a 'human sacrifice' of someone is not the proper way and ends up opening another can of worms, in this case, government support of our social services and the manner in which she was sacked.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But why was it allowed to contribute to his death and how do you know so assuredly? If Ms Shoesmith was sacked, how do people know that there wouldn't be any more cases like Baby P?

Why was it allowed to contribute to his death? Why it happened is irrelevant. It did. Ms Shoesmith was sacked as she was incapable of running the department in a safe manner. Until the government pull their finger out and sort out social services, there will be more cases like this.

You're listing the failings like OFSTED: attaching known 'failings' like 'starving of children' without elaborating on how these failings were allowed to happen and why they were allowed to happen. I'm not disputing that there have been cases like HST Power has highlighted, but if you're not prepared to question, you cannot hope for change within our social services.

You're really trying to start a debate out of nothing. Failings happen, the people responsible should take the blame. Ultimately, Sharon Shoesmith is responsible for the activities of her department.

 

[passmore]

So you really don't care about the future of social services responsible for caring for young children?

Change does not happen by making easy targets out of people...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So you really don't care about the future of social services responsible for caring for young children?

Don't try and drag that old trick in here.

I have said many times that the government need to sort out the social services.

Changes do not happen by making targets of people, but change does not happen when you have incompetent people running the children's services.

 

[passmore]

Don't try and drag that old trick in here.

I have said many times that the government need to sort out the social services.

Changes do not happen by making targets of people, but change does not happen when you have incompetent people running the children's services.

Yes she was incompotent and I agree the government needs to support social services better, but the naivety of those that believe there will be no more tragedies like this simply because there is no incompotent person in charge of childrens services speaks volumes.

It's very easy and comforting for those not to have a debate on this.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes she was incompotent and I agree the government needs to support social services better, but the naivety of those that believe there will be no more tragedies like this simply because there is no incompotent person in charge of childrens services speaks volumes.

It's very easy and comforting for those not to have a debate on this.

I don't think anyone's said that now Sharon's gone there will be no more incidents like this. In fact, if you actually read my posts you will see I said this:

Until the government pull their finger out and sort out social services, there will be more cases like this.

I have said many times that the there is too much work for too little social workers. There are not enough hours in the day to get through the workload they have. Quite why you are so against Sharon Shoesmith being sacked is beyond me - especially as you agree she was incompetent!

 

[passmore]

I've been incompotent when I used to drive trucks. I was disciplined a number of times, but I was never sacked. I accepted responsibility and moved on.

Being incompotent in itself is not a sackable offense, but as you're not prepared to question why her incompotence, and the incompotence of her own department, led to this, you can't really say I'm fully against her sacking.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I've been incompotent when I used to drive trucks. I was disciplined a number of times, but I was never sacked. I accepted responsibility and moved on.

Being incompotent in itself is not a sackable offense, but as you're not prepared to question why her incompotence, and the incompotence of her own department, led to this, you can't really say I'm fully against her sacking.

If people are incompetent then they shouldn't be working in a position where the lives of children are in question. Her incompetence led to a poorly managed department, which failed to act when it should have done.

 

[passmore]

Well I'll rest my case. If you're not prepared to ask why her incompotence led to a poorly managed department, you can't fully blame Ms Shoesmith for Baby P's death any more than I can fully defend her.

 

[SS4]

Don't try and drag that old trick in here.

I have said many times that the government need to sort out the social services.

Agreed in full although with a general lack of money I don't see it happening in this government's term.

Changes do not happen by making targets of people, but change does not happen when you have incompetent people running the children's services.

Until Baby P I'd say it was a case of out of sight is out of mind. Social services are chronically overworked although of course we don't have all the information - it's not implausible that she was told by subordinates that everything was fine and why would she disbelieve them? It is also rule in the Civil Service that you have to be seen supporting the government of the day in a professional and private capacity so she would not have been allowed to mention anything even if she thought it was wrong and as I understand it her boss was Ed Balls - then in government.
Incompetence at the top is demoralising throughout so it needs to be stopped - yet who is going to call out the boss?



When it comes to her wages and/or pension those who have been in the civil service for a long time have given themselves excellent pension conditions and excellent pay and benefits subsequently denying them to new members (the ones who'll be paying their pensions - hurrah for selfishness)