Talk

Advanced search

Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed - WTF!

(62 Posts)
Mandy2003 Fri 27-May-11 11:58:05

Verdict just now on the news. I am speechless.

JBellingham Fri 27-May-11 12:53:47

why?

JBellingham Fri 27-May-11 12:56:18

Seems they did not follow the correct procedures in sacking her. Therefore unfairly dismissed.

5318008 Fri 27-May-11 13:17:48

yep

you cannot be sacked without the correct procedures being undertaken, you just can't

Primalscream Fri 27-May-11 13:21:59

If she was sacked unfairly then she was sacked unfairly. End of. - it doesn't matter what her job was - employment law is there to protect everyone.

Abra1d Fri 27-May-11 13:24:28

I felt she was being scape-goated at the time. Of course the person at the top has to take responsibility but it didn't seem entirely fair to me that she took all the rap.

Primalscream Fri 27-May-11 13:25:27

Agree.

baboos Fri 27-May-11 13:33:41

Ed Balls should have resisted a knee jerk reaction just to apese the public, and followed proper procedure..............nothing to do with whether she was competent or not

lalalonglegs Fri 27-May-11 13:46:29

But there is a difference between being sacked unfairly on a matter of procedure and whether it was fair that you lost your job, iyswim. I don't remember all the details of the case but the overall impression was that her SS department was chaotic, that SWs weren't persistent enough with problem cases such as Baby P's and that some of them were under-trained. If this is the case, she did deserve to lose her job.

freshprincess Fri 27-May-11 13:50:08

Its all about process, not about whether she deserved the sack or not.

baboos Fri 27-May-11 14:13:57

Nobody is saying "she didn't deserve to lose her job", that is not the issue here. If due process wasn't adhered to properly when she was dismissed, then she has the right to appeal against that.

niceguy2 Fri 27-May-11 14:46:57

I guess it's more a case of "Incorrectly dismissed" rather than "unfairly dismissed".

fifitot Fri 27-May-11 16:36:48

I have zero sympathy for her and I work in that field. The guys at the top are paid well to take the blame when things go wrong 'on their watch'. Her relentlessness in getting this verdict makes me sick. I think she should have just taken the hit - given the now well recorded poor practice in her department that led to a baby dying.

I don't bloody care about the process. If she had any integrity she would have accepted responsibility for her department's failings and not forced this through. I am sure she is 'delighted', unlike the poor saps of social workers who were on the front line and got all the blame (some of it justifiably granted.) Horrible woman.

5318008 Fri 27-May-11 16:56:16

fifi no one will disagree about her responsibility for her department's failings but employment law means that the correct process should have been adhered to. It's difficult not to conflate the two

RobF Fri 27-May-11 17:17:54

What a load of balls. Is it any wonder people have little or no respect for the public sector? Scum like this woman are paid huge salaries to protect children, and when they fail to do so, they must face the consequences. IMO she should have been jailed as well as sacked. For her to get compensation like this is utter disgusting. She is making money out of killing children.

DuelingFanjo Fri 27-May-11 17:19:57

Rob, she didn't kill a child. You are over-reacting!

Northernlurker Fri 27-May-11 17:24:16

She didn't kill a child. Those closest to that child killed him.

Shoesmith was sacked live on television - that's not how things are done. She is justified in her claims and scapegoating her - on any social worker -removes responsibility from where it truly lies.

TheOriginalFAB Fri 27-May-11 17:25:20

They over reacted so it serves them right she has won her appeal but really, she should have resigned as she was the person in charge. I can't bear the woman.

Tanith Fri 27-May-11 18:23:11

Surely, if those at the top are supposed to take the hit, then Ed Balls was ultimately responsible.
I saw no sign of him offering to resign or taking any blame at all.

In fact, the whole case seemed to be a blame-shifting exercise with people more interested in avoiding responsibility than in actually finding out what went wrong.

fifitot Fri 27-May-11 19:23:57

Yes I understand employment law but at the end of the day SHE needs to look at herself and wonder if she did the most appropriate thing. If she hadn't have been sacked she should have resigned due to her department's failings.

A couple of years ago you may recall that a young man called Sonnex tortured and murdered 2 French students while subject to supervision by the probation service. The probation service may loads of mistakes with this man, wrong risk assessment, given case to an inexperienced worker who was over worked, too many cases etc. The usual story. In this instance the chief of Inner London Probation resigned. He didn't kill the students but he had the integrity to realise that it happened in his department.

londonartemis Fri 27-May-11 21:21:57

Not trying to defend Shoesmith here in the row over her dismissal, but actually I thought that in the Baby P case, it was the junior doctor who was more to blame than the social workers.

londonartemis Fri 27-May-11 21:23:23

...I mean, if it comes down to examining what the professionals did/didn't do about the household set up the child was in.

GothAnneGeddes Sat 28-May-11 02:32:59

Agreeing with Fifitot here. If she had a single ounce of integrity she should have resigned immediately. She was the boss, it was her department, she chose to ignore the concerns of her staff, therefore her position was untenable.

I find her effrontery in insisting on her lucre quite appalling. Again, maybe they didn't follow proper procedure, but can she really argue that she didn't deserve to be sacked? Who would really have the brass neck to fight for this?

Worst of all, this money will no doubt come from the Social Services budget, leaving less for those who really need it, so Shoesmith has screwed over the children of Haringey twice over.

I'm a public sector worker btw.

MisterDarsey Sat 28-May-11 07:59:23

You can't have politicians sacking people on TV just to make themselves popular. That's why we need the right to appeal, and a legal process that treats everyone as equal.

However much you may hate or condemn Shoesmith, remember next time it could be you in the firing line.

JosieZ Sat 28-May-11 09:11:55

I can't believe people are still ranting about S Shoesmith.

She has been on Today prog this am. Her point is that 55 children died that year in Haringey - a typical figure for the size of Haringey. So it's ok with all those ranting about her that probably half of those died on someone else's watch -- that's fine is it? That of the 19,000 deaths which occur in the uk each year only Baby P matters, not one other death matters, no other investigations should be made, no extra funding should be introduced to increase social worker numbers or police numbers to investigate these, or changes made to the record keeping. No, sack S Shoesmith and sleep at night with a clear conscience - someone has paid. Nothing else matters.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: