Newsnight: Baby P Story/sharon Shoesmith

[ChillDoubt]

Just starting now. Sounds like it will be interesting and shocking.

[ChillDoubt]

Spin it any way you like jno, she failed to do her job she was tasked with, which was to oversee the health and welfare of the most vulnerable members of society.

Many will view this as blood money, nothing less.
She must be a little distraught at not getting the million she'd supposedly pinned her hopes on, but £600,000+ for abject failure in one's post isn't a bad return, is it?

[CokeTulip]

It was quite a disappointing error on the part of this Gov Minister that he didn't consult with the legal dept at his disposal, and so it seems out of balance and unfair but he did leave himself wide-open and I guess she was advised not to ignore it.
It is such a sad case..and should never have happened. She might want to do something helpful with that money we dont know - we'll have to wait and see. I doubt she went into the job for this to happen on her watch and it must be the absolute worst thing but it would have looked very different if they did things by the book. That bit wasn't her fault.

[jno]

I'm spinning it exactly the way it was, as reported in your own link - did you read it?

//The Court of Appeal concluded Ms Shoesmith had been "unfairly scapegoated" and her removal from office in December 2008 by the then Children's Secretary Ed Balls had been "intrinsically unfair and unlawful".//

[venator]

I agree, the idiot who messed it up was Ed Balls. If the council had been allowed to follow the correct procedure, she would possibly have been sacked

As it was, Mr Balls jumped in with both feet and it cost the taxpayer a fortune.

But what do you expect from the man who was in the last Labour government, which also cost the taxpayer a fortune?

[ELVIS68]

Either way she would've been sacked, still a piss take

[Gromit]

Gromit
10:23 Tue 07th Jun 2011

// And she is getting compensation for unfair dismissal not because she didn't deserve to be sack, but because Ed Balls is useless and could not perform a simple task like dismissing someone without screwing up. //

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1025566.html

[LazyGun]

Did not see the Newsnight piece last night, but Ed Balls was obviously legally wrong to sack her. Before we start blaming Balls out of hand though, lets not forget that at the time of the sacking, and despite the results of an inquiry that clearly outlined Shoesmiths own failings, she was adamant that she was going to stay in the job. The public were outraged that she would get to keep her job, despite the clear findings of the inquiry, as were the tabloid press. Most at the time applauded Balls' decision. Indeed, Cameron etc has supported the principle that Governments, not the courts, have the right to decide who should be sacked within the organisations they manage.

So yes, Balls was wrong to sack her as he did, but it highlights an important principle - should senior civil servants be open to sacking by the government, should the government no longer want them in the post, or should it be down to the courts?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/27/sharon-shoesmith-baby-p-case

[Svejk]

Not sure why the council are responsible for paying her. Will they claim the money back from the government?

[Gromit]

LazyGun

It's not always the Government.
Boris Johnson successfully got rid of Sir Ian Blair, the Chief Constable of the Met Police even though he had no power to sack him.

Politicians should work for the public interests. The problem arises when the public do not want to act in the public interest. Bals' voters wanted Shoesmiths head and he duly delivered. At the time, many were rejoicing on AB even though it was inevitable she would get big compensation for wrongful dismissal.

[emmie]

Ed Balls made the error of jumping in with both feet, however Ms Shoesmith should bear some of the responsibility, she was well paid and failed in her duty to her staff and to a child who died. And who is to say she is unemployable, where is that writ large.

[Gromit]

Emmie,

// Shoesmith should bear some of the responsibility, she was well paid and failed in her duty to her staff //

That's not a great job reference :-)

[emmie]

going on how many of these councils seem to work, she could well have been moved, employed elsewhere, i have seen this happen time and time again. Failure on her part to oversee her staff led ultimately to a terrible tragedy and if anyone noticed the mother will likely be free soon, let's hope she doesn't start a family elsewhere.

[emmie]

i had reason to question a carer who was looking after a relative in a care home, one of the workers, she did something i consider unforgivable, yet she was moved to another care home instead of being sacked. That is not an unusual move, they do protect their people, often at the cost to those they are supposedly caring for. Look what happens to those who blow the whistle in NHS, care homes, often they are the ones who get the chop.

[youngmafbog]

I'm certainly no fan of Balls, but I think we need to look at the situation at the time. The public was baying for blood, and rightly so. Shoesmith was in charge and failed miserably. She went.

This is what is wrong with this country when people like this obnoxious sour faced woman can skin the state for 600K.

[emmie]

the point being is that she only went because she was sacked, in contravention of the current employment law, had Ed Balls waited for the outcome of a inquiry, then likely she could possibly been dismissed then, however now she is due for a hefty payout courtesy of the taxpayer because of his hair trigger response. The public may have been baying for blood, however he should have known better and waited.

[Gromit]

Ymb

There is nothing wrong with this country. We have laws on how to dismiss unwanted employees. Those laws work very well. In this case, the law was ignored, hence her successful claim. She could have been easily removed legally, but that would have taken a little bit more time. And denyed Balls the cudos for firing her.
Her department failed and she should rightfully have been removed, but it should have been done legally.

[ludwig]

If she had any sense of shame she would have resigned at the time and the issue would never have arisen. What a b1tch.

[jno]

councils seem to fail in child protection quite often. This may prove that all council workers are fiends incarnate, or it may suggest that there are serious problems in reconciling the need to share information with the need to protect privacy.

So why is Shoesmith the only person who's ever targeted? Have any department heads been sacked in any other similar cases? Does anyone even know who they are? Is there any evidence that Shoesmith was personally responsible for any failings? Or is it just that somebody's head must roll and she's the only one anyone knows of?

Why is it only Shoesmith? The answer is probably that she's the only one the tabloids have whipped the public into a frenzy over.

The court said she'd been scapegoated. I think they were right.

[emmie]

it isn;t only her, but Haringay have come under fire before for the same sort of case, i agree many social workers are under pressure with too many cases, but you have well paid bosses who should be overseeing how their staff work, good practice and indeed highlight cases like Baby Peter. Many of the agencies are not necessarily in tune with one another, not on same computer database, pretty much like the DWP. If a case is flagged up like Baby Peter then it should be across the board, police, social services, hospitals, doctors,
Sadly this won't be the last case, this will go on and on, more lessons not learned.

[emmie]

jno, on that premise no one is ever responsible, foolish in the extreme, she was ultimately responsible, it's just that Ed Balls jumped the gun, had he not she could have got the push with no payout, and it's not about the money, it's about doing your job, not being some blame merchant who bleats on about how it's not my fault. The police, NHS don't come out of cases well often because their big bosses are in the same mindset, not my fault, well someone is to blame, and in Baby Peters case it was the mother, and the odious men who killed him, but the sheer carelessness of the agencies involved, ultimately led to his death.