Baby P Boss Wins Appeal

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13570959



An ex-children's services director says she is "thrilled" to have won a Court of Appeal battle over her sacking after Baby Peter's death in 2007.
Judges allowed Sharon Shoesmith's challenge against a High Court ruling that cleared former children's secretary Ed Balls and Haringey Council of acting unlawfully.
The education department and Haringey plan to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Baby Peter Connelly was found dead in August 2007 with more than 50 injuries.
Ms Shoesmith's appeal against watchdog Ofsted was dismissed.
Ofsted said its report on Ms Shoesmith's department, which identified "insufficient strategic leadership and management oversight", had been vindicated.
A Haringey Council spokesman said it was "deeply disappointed" by the judgement and stood by everything it had done.
Baby Peter Connelly was found dead in August 2007 with more than 50 injuries and the subsequent Ofsted report exposed failings in Ms Shoesmith's department.
In December 2008, she was sacked, bringing her 35-year career to an abrupt end.
Ms Shoesmith said she first heard of her dismissal when then children's secretary Ed Balls announced she would be removed from her post with immediate effect in a live press conference on television.
She said after the hearing: "I'm over the moon. Absolutely thrilled.
"I am very relieved to have won my appeal and for recognition I was treated unfairly and unlawfully."
She said the sorrow of Peter's death would "stay with me for the rest of my life".
"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies," she added.
Ms Shoesmith had asked Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void.
Her lawyers had argued that she was the victim of "a flagrant breach of natural justice" after she lost her £133,000-a-year post amid a media storm.
Ms Shoesmith also argued she was entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day.


Hmm. There is a school of thought which says that if you're the boss of a department which makes this kind of mistake then you should bloody well be sacked.

[Niall_Quinn]

Government, different rules. The real world only applies to the victims of government. We can all sleep more soundly now knowing another brown shirt is on the case ignoring the guilty and bringing the innocent to justice.

[Nozza!]

Hmm. There is a school of thought which says that if you're the boss of a department which makes this kind of mistake then you should bloody well be sacked if you are found to have been in breach of your contract following an impartial hearing free from outside political influence.

Oi, mush, bang on the money as usual...

[Letters]

Nice to see you've brought your bleeding heart with you to the new site.
So it doesn't matter if you're in charge of a department through whose gross negligence a child is tortured to death?
Fair enough.

[Nozza!]

Nice to see you've brought your bleeding heart with you to the new site.
So it doesn't matter if you're in charge of a department through whose gross negligence a child is tortured to death?
Fair enough.

Oi, mush, of course it matters...but I rather admire Sharon Shoesmith as she wouldn't be made a scapegoat for political expediency...She was the victim of a witch hunt designed to deflect attention from the real problems of under funding in social services, intolerable work loads for social workers, too much administration for front line workers and poor communications between child protection agencies (police, NHS, schools and social services)...it was tragic that Peter died of course and more should've been done...but social services were just one small part of support network that let him down...

Good to see you've brought your poor grasp of the issues and knee jerk proclamations with you...

[Letters]

She was boss of the deparment whose staff made numerous visits to the family in question.
They dropped the ball. Massively.
The buck should stop with her (in the same way that people are calling for Wenger's head right now. It's the players putting in the crap performances but he's the one who ultimately takes responsibility).

There are I'm sure a load of issues which need addressing to stop this sort of thing happening again but this was a family known to social services and their job is to stop this sort of thing happening. You say yourself that more should have been done. Whose responsibility was it to make sure that was done if not hers? (Again, assuming that if her staff cock up then she's the one who ultimately should take responsibility).

[PGFC]

It's another Ed Balls-up, it should never have been handled this way, justice would have been served much better if she'd been roughly pushed over after being asked politely to move on.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, all good stuff...but explain to me how Sharon Shoesmith can in Ofsted's eyes go from providing "strong and effective leadership" to the devil incarnate?...She may well have been ultimately responsible for the Baby P's death but political meddling and Ofsted's ass covering meant that she was not afforded a fair hearing. I have heard Sharon Shoesmith on a number of occasions on the radio - she comes across as a determined, caring and committed woman, all attributes you would expect someone to have in her position...surely you can't be arguing that just because there is a emotive issue, normal practice goes out the window?...


Not sure your analogy with Wenger works, he is blessed with a embarassment of resources in an endeavour which can hardly be called life or death...

[Letters]

I don't think she's the devil incarnate but she was in charge of a department which made a catalogue of mistakes which resulted in a child's death.
I'd expect the boss of such a deparment to be sacked.

[Nozza!]

Oi, geezer, we're getting closer to agreement...Ofsted undertook that review and it was after one the previous year that was glowing in it's praise for Ms Shoesmith...did things really fall apart over a year? Which one of the Ofsted reports was a true reflection of the situation (knowing Ofsteds method of working it was the second one when they knew it would be under significant scrutiny)...but that does not take away from the fact that there was political pressure to sack her which led to a ripping of the employment rule book...something which is both unfair and unacceptable... or are you willing to turn a blind eye and claim the end justifies the means?...


The real tradegy is that there are other Climbiés and Baby P's occurring even as we type...my guess is that the current wave of budget penny pinching will not make child protection any easier and that sooner rather than later we will wake to another child death and another enquiry into the failings of the social services...the underreported legacy of the Baby P / Shoesmith case is that the both new recruits and old hands are thinking twice about their futures as social workers...

[Letters]

Oi, geezer, we're getting closer to agreement...Ofsted undertook that review and it was after one the previous year that was glowing in it's praise for Ms Shoesmith...did things really fall apart over a year?

Well no. More likely is they were making mistakes that year too and getting away with them. If I'm running an airline and I don't bother with safety checks on planes and there are no crashes in a year then the airline's excellent safety record is not because of brilliant management, it's luck.
I agree they should have followed due process though when sacking her. But she should have been sacked. IMO.

Agree with the rest.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, final point from me...the second Ofsted report was thorough...but I would suggest that this was partly because they needed to cover their own inadequacies from the first report, they are very often criticised for being pretty inconsistent and easily foolable by streetwise education administrators...part of the problem is that they wield too much influence and this gets in the way of the role they could play in helping childcare facilities improve...

I offer no opinion on whether she should have been sacked, as I do not have enough knowledge of employment law, her contract or the evidence available about the case...

Oh and do you like my name change?...

[The Wengerbabies]

Dumb bitch. Of course she has to take some responsibility.

On another note capital punishment should be handed out to the mother and boyfriend, disgusting humans.

[Xhaka Can’t]

We can never know this of course, but had Baby P lived his tragic life somewhere else in the country, in how many parts of it would the result have been the same?

It is almost impossible to read about social services, in particular those parts of social services responsible for the welfare of children without the article referring to lack of skills, resources, time, funding and a lack of morale amongst those working at the sharp end. I haven't got the facts to hand, but I recall a few months ago reading about Harrigay Social Services and how things have not improved under the new leadership.

Bearing this in mind, when the next tragedy occurs, as it surely will, do the politicians look at what it takes to improve the situation or do they go for what is politically expediant and sack the next scapegoat? I'm not saying Shoesmith is a scapegoat here, but what I am saying is I do not for one minute believe that her sacking has made the life of a single vulnerable child in this country any safer.

[Niall_Quinn]

Oi, mush, all good stuff...but explain to me how Sharon Shoesmith can in Ofsted's eyes go from providing "strong and effective leadership" to the devil incarnate?...She may well have been ultimately responsible for the Baby P's death but political meddling and Ofsted's ass covering meant that she was not afforded a fair hearing. I have heard Sharon Shoesmith on a number of occasions on the radio - she comes across as a determined, caring and committed woman, all attributes you would expect someone to have in her position...surely you can't be arguing that just because there is a emotive issue, normal practice goes out the window?...


Not sure your analogy with Wenger works, he is blessed with a embarassment of resources in an endeavour which can hardly be called life or death...

WE are responsible for every tragedy that comes about because of government. We allow government therefore we allow the fallout that's inevitable from government. A long time ago I realised the best way to deal with authoritarianism (especially of the type practising agendas that conflict with humanitarianism, and the hoards of willing servants it attracts) is extermination, so that no trace remains and no hope of revival exists. Now then, the true knee-jerk reaction to this will be to delve deeply into symptoms of government and most likely in isolated terms, as if lack of funding for public services somehow doesn't lead back to one primary policy that has been with us for centuries - namely subservience to the banking system. The most shocking assumption of all is that government is involved in service in any way, shape or form. Well it is in one way, I suppose, but you won't see it advertised on TV even though it is under your nose. Just to stand back for a moment and look dispels the ludicrous notion of service to the public, but the theatre is instinctively trained into society. Even our language is subverted and inverted. Of course this woman should be sacked (worse if I had my way), not because of Baby P, Baby P is another symptom of government, what drives it, and the society that is inevitably created as a result. No, she should be sanctioned in the most comprehensive manner (along with all the other brown shirts) because she willingly gives herself to government. That is a crime of proportions that can scarcely be imagined, and yet similar criminality is rampant across the land and even glorified. I don't hold ignorance as any valid defence either, because the facts are there if one only cares to look. When we can snap out of government then we can continue evolving and that's what will save the Baby P's. But before that happens then the odd sacking here or resignation there is oil to lubricate the machine. Nothing more. Millions more children will die this year and our public servants will tell us nothing can be done, even as they actively exacerbate the carnage and call it public service.

I agree with you, holding this one woman up as a method to forgive sins so vile they can no longer be comprehended is an apology that could never be accepted by a decent human being. If she's not to be the first of many then let her go free, what's the point of scratching one pimple on a foul and stinking arse. Scratch them all or live with the stench. Be the stench.

[V-Pig]

I'm expecting milfette's baby to end up the same way, except he won't be on the front page cos he looks like his fucktard dad.

Wish I were joking.