Professor jones on London tonight reckons today's ruling has given a boost to the social work profession!!!!! My god let's celebrate the death of a poor child shall we and shake the hands of a person paid over £100.000 a year who was in charge of a team of social workers whom after 60+ visits never felt the need to take action, I'm finding this very difficult to swallow

I assume because they wanted to pin the blame on someone and agreed to take the risk of possibly having to pay out compensation in order to get shot of her. Balls reckoned that the situation was too urgent to permit a fairer process. That's rubbish, if they thought she was guilty of gross misconduct they could have suspended her whilst they undertook the disciplinary investigation/hearing and put in a 'temporary' Director whilst that ran it's course.

Not quite, she owned up to making the wrong decisions and showed deep remorse, then volunteered to be removed from the GMCs register, avoiding a hearing.....So she can no longer practice in the UK, but she can in other countries 

Sky, yes, of course she should have been accountable for serious failings in her department, (and that should have been judged using due process imo.) However, it's beyond unlikely that a Director of Children's Services would get daily reports from every social worker about every child protection case that they are dealing with.....there'd have been several tiers of management between her and the social worker who would have been responsible for that.

The sad thing is that in jobs at that level it's more a political position than a hands on position, so yes, she will no doubt be very far removed from the nitty gritty of individual cases.   That said, she's on the salary she's on because the buck IS supposed to stop there.   Obviously not in as much as she's going to go knocking on doors and rescuing poor babies like Peter (she's more probably up to her eyes in budgets etc) but when the shit hits the fan, she's in the firing line (and I use that word on purpose)   Her department failed, she should carry the can - not for his death, obviously - but for the failings of the department.    She should have been fired, using the correct procedure... and it shouldn't have taken 3 years to sort out.   I've not seen any pictures, I don't know how smug she seems.      Having said all that... I still couldn't haven't gone to court in her position.   I'd fall on my sword willingly and probably not be able to live with myself, but I guess that's why I couldn't be a social worker.

 

(hi supes btw )

Yes i understand that, but as this child must have been on the list, if not at the top very near it,  of children at severe risk, this woman should have made herself available for daily updates on the situation, or at the very least appointed someone to do so. She failed in so many ways IMO

 

 

*nodding my head vigourously in agreement*

I agree Kaffy.....If there'd been a fair process and the disciplinary panel had judged that she was guilty of gross misconduct then she should have gone, in that way. But surely Balls et al must have known that she wasn't going to go quietly and accept a sacking without due process?...Still reckon they probably just took the risk of a big pay out to get rid  

Yes you could be right there Supes, plus they are going to appeal so she may get nothing at all in the end.....

It was just gross stupidity that they didn't follow the correct procedures.    Regardless of whether it was something as major as this.. or if she'd been caught with her hand in the till in Woolies...  if the employment laws weren't followed, she has a case.    Legally if not morally, she's in the right.

Well, a wee baby died from horrific injuries caused by neglect and abuse, but at least poor, underpaid 'victim' Sharon Shoesmith has won her case and got a whack of compensation!  So all's well that ends well! 

 

I am being sarcastic of course......This is ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE! 

Nevres Kemal was the social worker who complained to 4 separate ministers according to various reports (not about Baby P per se but about systematic failings in the care of vulnerable and at risk children) so Harringey Social Services hounded her out because she was a whistle blower.

Loads about it on the web.

I can't find the report which I know I read in one of the Sundays at the time (either the Indy or the Observer) but it may have been pulled as Harringey council apparently got an injunction on her to stop her telling anything else and then demanded a confidentiality clause in her settlement for wrongful dismissal.

Perhaps they had something to hide eh?

Daft bastards!

I have been trying to find the initial Ofsted report, but it seems to be comments on it , rather than the initial publication.................?

There's some stuff here Skylark, again it's mainly notes but it does list the various Ofsted reports by their correct titles which might make them easier to find.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...d-child-1019502.html

Thanks Veggie, will save it and look tomorrow xx

Fair point, but I'm sure when those sentences were handed down, opinions were shared on here whether justice had been done.  IMO, it hadn't.

I had a little experiment today asking people if they could remember the names of the evil torturers or anyone else in the awful story. It seems that it will forever be associated with Shoesmith. She was judged by the arsehole Ed Balls at the behest of the press. He said today that he would do the same again. Employment law is there to protect us all. If they start abusing it then we could be the next victims. I know that the Tories would like to get rid and enable employers to hire and fire at will but we must resist them.

Here sky http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_providers/la_view/(leaid)/309

And the Serious Case Review overview reports are here http://www.education.gov.uk/ch.../serious-case-review

You forgot to ask me

Couldn't agree more re employment law, but, as you know v well there are times that people will disregard it and decide they're willing to 'take the financial hit.'

Having said that, Shoesmith could have done with showing a bit more compassion and regret and a little less arrogance from the outset. I can understand why people are outraged by her celebration of her victory today...and her  expressions of sorrow at the death of Baby Peter could have been a little more heartfelt.

Maybe she needs to remember that the second Ofsted report and SCR were highly critical.....maybe it's that she's just remembering the first ones that stood before Balls got involved 

Thank you, will have a read thru later x

I agree with everyone here.  This is an utter disgrace. 

It may not have been the proper procedure but she deserved to lose her job  Baby P may have been alive today if she/they had took the proper procedure neccesary for him to keep him safe,I actually could not give a damn about how unfairly the court said she has been  treated but very  angry she has been awarded all this money and looking so pleased with herself 

Couldnt agree more.

Employment law is there to protect us all but SS and other government bodies are employed to protect at risk and vulnerable children.Shoesmith and those accountable to her failed baby Peter and his siblings so much so little Peter lost his life whilst his sister was horrifically sexually abused and raped.Don't make sense that the law or anyone should protect her and those who failed to protect those children and no doubt countless others,more disgustingly to  reward them financially for such failings.

Quite an interesting interview with Shoesmith in today's paper. Deep sense of regret but quite rightly gunning for Balls. More interesting is the sub article about the crisis of recruitment. Damned if they do and damned if they don't - a lot of social workers quit. They have had to import from the US and Australia.

Agree massively with you too Lee.    This woman seems so bloody smug!  I actually feel like if I met her, i could quite easily smack her in the face.. Hideous cow.

Sparkles what those children had to endure is absolutely heartbreaking,if I had played any part in failing to protect him/them I am absolutely certain the guilt would be so overwhelming the last thing I'd be doing is what she is doing .Yes SS to have to have a sense of detachment,that's understandable,she detached so much I think she was in another county.

I know Lee... its a disgrace it really is.  The woman seems only concerned with how much compo she has got, and doesnt seem to even be mentioning the children who suffered.  How does she sleep at night.  Cow. 

 

Off out now, so take care all, and see you later

Hi Marg...Thing is, if the proper process had been followed then I imagine she would have been dismissed, particularly after the highly damning Ofsted report....and then we wouldn't be now in the position where she's likely to get some outrageous amount of compensation out of tax payer's money

Hi Supes you could be right about the compensation but we will never know how things would have panned out, I dont like seeing/reading the news making out she was hard done by because the proper procedures were not taken ..who cares ..I dont..just hope she never works with children again

Lee agree with your posts above

Marg.I cried for ages over baby Peter,what that poor angel endured just makes my stomach flip over.From A to Z those who should have protected him either failed him or stood idly by while he was brutally tortured to death.

I'm not defending the woman at all but ...............what you say at being damned if you do and damned if you dont is IMO quite right. Not sure what the answer is really as some years ago social workers were involved in taking kids away from their families on very flimsy evidence. After that it seems regulations were tightened up ...............................many years ago I thought I'd like to be a social worker but ...................from what I can make out it's a minefield.

 

Such a shame - kids need protecting - maybe it should be (when it comes to the crunch) a liaison between police, social workers and the medical profession. Surely there should be better communication and ease of access of information?

I do hope people don't think I'm defending her per se. I have a bad feeling about this, I suspect someone will appeal, then it will go higher. Eventually it will end up at the Euro courts. By then two of the evil bastards will be free. I don't know how much more money they should throw at this case. Perhaps Balls should have just said, "sorry I got it wrong and am responsible for mega payouts and a crisis of hegemony within social work." I bet the previously mentioned evil bastards are having a good laugh at our expense since nobody, except apparently Soops, can remember even what they are called.

Yep we do  Naughty Jer.

 

One point about no one knowing their names is that the names were surpressed for such a long time (because of the court case about the toddler who was raped by one or more of them waiting to go to court I believe) that people just know it as the Baby P case.

In other cases the perpetrators (sp) names are known and linked with the kids fairly quickly

The powers that be know the names, i dont see how that changes anything on the issue of SS not doing her job properly.You seem to blame Ed Balls, i see a cold woman whose first concern seemed to be her job. SHE made the decision to go for unfair dismissal, had it been on other grounds rather than the council not following the correct procedures , she would have lost. If it goes to appeal , they may find that the case and she gets nothing . IMO

The authorities can't possibly win this case. It will go up through the levels appeal by appeal. I would be very surprised if the European courts went against the law.

Yes I do blame Ed Balls. He rode roughshod through procedure just to show what a tough guy he was. Alas the electorate dumped him on his arse as did those of us in the party who felt unable to vote for such an idiot.

On the procedural issue alone, yes that will be the case, unfortunately...............