Forum menu
Over the baby P killing
Ed Balls did act unlawfully in sacking her. Thats the decision from the court of appeal
But the judges allowed Ms Shoesmith's appeal against the former children's secretary because "the secretary of state did not afford Ms Shoesmith the opportunity to put her case".In the case of Haringey, the judges said: "We were unanimously of the view that Haringey's procedures were tainted by unfairness."
Quite ruddy right. A politician cannot demand the sacking of an employee of a different organisation without following due process and without allowing them to put their side of the evidence. She is now in line for a big payout.
While Shoesmith might have carried the responsibility " the buck stops here" To sack someone like that as a public scapegoat is always wrong
While Shoesmith might have carried the responsibility " the buck stops here" To sack someone like that as a public scapegoat is always wrong
Her sacking was ham fisted and illegal, but she was ultimately responsible. A bad day for the public finances.
She should have retired to her office with a stiff drink and her service revolver.
As a Haringey resident I long for the day when I can once again entrust the well-being of my children to the state via Ms Shoesmith.
Failing that, do I get to foot the bill for her well-deserved compensation?
I am delighted.
I don't know much about Ed Balls apart from that being a simple popularist political act aimed to please the unthinking masses. He has no credibility for me and I hope this damages his career.
To say that she is to blame simply because she was at the top is a joke.
she was ultimately responsible
What, for the death of that poor child? No she wasn't. She may have been irresponsible in managing her department in dealing with the whole sad affair, but to use her as a scapegoat is a disgrace. To single out an individual to heap the blame on they way that happened to her was disgusting. Why not sack those who employed her? The government minister in charge?
She never received fair and just treatment. Good luck to her, and good on her for standing up for herself. A 35-year career, in which she did loads of really good work and helped improve things in one of London's poorest areas, all down the drain cos someone wanted to appease a baying media crowd.
Baby P's still dead though and she was in charge.
[i]To say that she is to blame simply because she was at the top is a joke.[/i]
Having said that, people at the top are often pretty quick to take the credit (and bonuses) when things go right.
ditto what Elfin said
Baby P's still dead though and she was in charge.
Right, so destroying her career and her character is going to bring Peter back then?
mt - Member
Baby P's still dead though and she was in charge.
...and you're still posting and haven't given it a lot of thought.
I hope they take a realistic view on the compensation, what, a pound maybe 👿
Why is that 'realistic', Labby?
I'd imagine it'll be quite significant, given that she was on a fair sum, and the damage to her ability to get work at a similar level.
RIP baby Peter.
Zulu - 3 years wages at £135 000 pa sounds about right. Plus pension contributions.
Could have legally sacked her of course but didn't even try to.
This outcome is a little bit like a guilty criminal getting off on a technicality.
It may be legally right but it's still morally wrong.
Shoesmith should absolutely have been sacked. That was the right outcome. The fact that they went about it in the wrong way doesn't change that it just allows her to hide behind a facade of process and costs the tax payer money.
Oh and can I add that the court upheld the Ofsted review of the situation and confirmed that there was "insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight", which lays the blame clearly at Shoesmith's shoes.
"insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight", which lays the blame clearly at Shoesmith's shoes.
Oh, not at the feet of those who employed her in that role then?
Shoesmith should absolutely have been sacked. That was the right outcome. The fact that they went about it in the wrong way doesn't change that it just allows her to hide behind a facade of process and costs the tax payer money.
Cobblers (!). She was held up as a scapegoat, and sacrificed to appease a load of knee-jerking ignorant idiots baying for someone's head. Her sacking has created major disruption in the department where she worked, total lack of trust in that department, severely undermined the confidence in all who work there, and will ultimately cost the council loads of money (at a time when they are being forced to make cuts). So, those who will suffer will ultimately be those who the service is sposed to benefit.
Tell me what's 'moral' about that.
geetee1972 - Member
Oh and can I add that the court upheld the Ofsted review of the situation and confirmed that there was "insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight", which lays the blame clearly at Shoesmith's shoes.
Did it (or anything else) conclude this caused baby P's death?
did it comment on the resources, support etc available to her, what conditionsshe was working under?
Christ, Elfins not going to let this one go is he... 😉
Or Al.
Or the other agencies who also failed? The police who failed to prosecute, who ffailed to notify of concerns?? The healthcare officials? The docter who saw the child while it had the injuries that it was dying of but found nothing wrong?
Many people made catastrophic errors. Shoesmith was castigated in the press and used as a scapegoat. she is no more liable than a dozen other people. Infact she was very a highly regardedprofessional.
Christ, Elfins not going to let this one go is he...
Or Al.
And together with TJ, we form a Trinity of Argue.
From which no-one is safe....
I will declare myself on the side of Elf, Al and TJ for this one.
Just because you are at the top does not make you [i]automatically[/i] culpable if anything bad happens down the line in your organisation.
If the failing is one of mismanagement then it should be treated as such. If mismanagement DIRECTLY resulted in a death, then that should be taken into account.. corporate manslaughter perhaps? The organisation did not cause the death of P.
I think the lesson here is...when there's an appalling disaster only a politician can **** it up even more.
I can't see this ending well. I'm not getting involved
Oh... go on then. All I'll say is that the worst thing that can happen if I **** up at work is that something has to get re-printed. I couldn't cope with the kind of responsibility a position like hers demands.
And if we're talking about 'responsibility' I'd suggest that Ed Balls looks at the little banking hiccup we've had recently and asks himself whether he should still be in a job
If Shoesmith should have been sacked so should the chief constable, so should the local NHS Chief exec.
If someone can provide evidence that Shoesmith's management acts or omissions caused the death then fairt enough, but no one's come out with that yet.
I'd suggest that Ed Balls looks at the little banking hiccup we've had recently
Blimey, this is too easy...yup, all his fault! Oh no, Brown's! NOt a global thing at all, oh no.
EDIT I reckon this holy trinity could do some proper damage. Any one want to BATTLE?
Which Agency had overall responsbility towards care, though? Although i take your point TJ, surely Shoesmith was more directly linked than say the Chief Constable.
Wasn't one complaint that she set her department up towards having too much of a `tick box' mentality, although obviously not a sacking offence in itself.
al - if we apply the logic you applied to Ms Shoesmith, then its ENTIRELY his fault and he should be sacked.
You can't have it both ways. Even on the internet 😉
Christ, Elfins not going to let this one go is he...
Or Al.And together with TJ....
[img] 
[/img]
She ran a department astonishingly badly. She didn't cause the Baby P death, but the system of control was appalling. Whether she was sdedicated professional is not the issue; she did the job of director very badly, and as such shold have been removed from post.
Zulu - 3 years wages at £135 000 pa sounds about right. Plus pension contributions.
The law for an unlawful sacking is £80,400 from 1st February 2011
There is no statutory cap on compensation payable under the Sex, Race and Disability Discrimination legislation (see Discrimination/a general note ) or the "whistle blower" provisions (see the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998). There is a limit of £25,000 on awards made by tribunals in breach of contract (ie wrongful dismissal ) cases.
The idea that Sharon Shoesmith should get around £500k for her dismissal is ludicrous; the process of her removal was unreasonable, certainly, but she deserves nothing more than the statutory compensation for that.
i've worked quite closely on child protection issues with Local authorities just recently and I'll tell you all one thing,
people that do what they do ain't on singletrack all day long arguing about the price of fish. if they screw up, its ****ing serious. Have you seen their individual caseloads? The ofsted report is damning and yes she should have been censured in some way but TJ and elfin are totally right.
That poor little kid 🙁
What about me? Am I not right too?
*pats al*
one day, you'll be as right as they are
😀
[i]What about me? Am I not right too?[/i]
Always.
and int his case I even agree with you - she was a convenient way to close off responsibility and avoid any politicians (at a local or national level) having to accept any blame at all.
And me! I agreed with them! It wasn't easy to type it out either.
And together with TJ, we form a Trinity of Argue.From which no-one is safe....
Post of the year no way you three will agree again
she took the heat due to a Balls up ..see what I did there.
TBh there's no pleasure to be gained at all from being 'right' in this case. Far too tragic and terrible a situation. But as shocking as it was, I do very strongly believe that Ms Shoesmith deserved fair and just treatment, which she never got. I know someone who worked with her, who says she's fantastic. Her record as Director of Childrens' Services in Haringey was, until the Baby Peter case, exemplary. She managed to oversee a dramatic improvement in education in the borough, and hundreds of teachers and other council employees have supported her throughout this ordeal.
As I said earlier, the biggest losers in this are those the service is sposed to help. Those who got the help and support they deserved, when Ms Shoesmith was in the job.
I'm gaining quite a lot of pleasure looking forward to seeing Balls squirm/going radio rental seeing hm weasel out of blame.
Elfinsafety - Member
Baby P's still dead though and she was in charge.
Right, so destroying her career and her character is going to bring Peter back then?
cynic-al - Member
mt - Member
Baby P's still dead though and she was in charge.
...and you're still posting and haven't given it a lot of thought.
I have given it some thought, perhaps you should look past the employment law issue and check out her actions regarding the baby P case.
mt - which are?
What about he doctor who examined the baby befoer he died?
I thought there had been an Ofsted report/rating that gave the service top marks prior to the incident? Are they culpable too? Sacking her was a knee jerk response to cynical tabloid 'outrage' imo.
However badly the service may or may not have been run - tragically cases like this will still happen. Some people seem to think you can prevent it completely but it's just not realistic.
Just because you are at the top does not make you automatically culpable if anything bad happens down the line in your organisation.
So it's not all CMD's fault?
mt - my point is about causation - it's still completely unclear what yours is other than "she was in charge".