Making Humphries work for it, impressive.
It was. It was interesting to hear the clip they pulled out for the 9am news. It focused on the Balls issue rather than responsibility - despite the fact John Humphries had spent most of the interview trying to get her to say that she should have been sacked.
Humphries seems to have turned into an aggressive, not very good miniPaxman. He seems to just talk over other people now, ignore everything that they say and just attempt them to agree with what he thinks the issue is.
She seemed very clear headed and made him appear boorish.
Cameron in missing the point / populist ranting
David Cameron has made it clear that he has a real problem with this decision because he believes elected ministers should be the ones who make key decisions about their departments."For the prime minister it is about accountability," he said. "It's about elected ministers deciding if people like Sharon Shoesmith are doing a good or bad job. He doesn't think it should be up to judges."
Ed Balls could probably have sacked her fairly - he just needed to follow due process. The government are not above the law.
Personally I doubt a fair sacking was possible as they did not have grounds. However doing so without any due process can never be right. She learnt she had been sacked from seeing Ed Balls making a speech on TV.
aP - Member
Humphries seems to have turned into an aggressive, not very good miniPaxman
Been like that for a while IMO, shame really - it works for Paxman on't' telly IMO.
he was quite argumentative /badgering with her and quite in her face. She handled herself very well and think she acquitted herself quite well. I doubt the media will give her views a fair hearing though never mind the tabloids and hand ringing.
Whole thing was political interference in tragic series of events, whipped up into a media frenzy for short-term political gains.
In my view Shoesmith was right to do what she needed to do and has had the right verdict returned (obviously based on media coverage not actual true facts, but what else do I have to go on?).
Nothing will bring baby P back - key thing is to learn from the whole thing to minimise risks of a repeat, not decapitate a scapegoat and get back to business as usual.
I was impressed by the simple quote about blame not creating anything productive. She's right.
Cameron in missing the point
I agree entirely (now I do often agree with TJ, but about CMD? 😯 )
The judges only came into it because a complete Balls up was made of it.
I'm surprised he didn't just take the easy opportunity to give Balls a good kicking - Shoesmith has already done more than half the job in that respect.
Humphries is a terrible interviewer, they need to get shot of him.
I think this hugely adversarial style of journalism and attacking often stops people actually saying what they think. It is like being heckled rather than interviewed.
Sometimes they should let people articulate their view without attacking it. Not every interview needs to be adversarial or an interrogation.
Some politicians deserve it but it seemed OTT for this one.