TO think Sharon Shoesmith should have walked out of court by a side exit

[Silver1]

Sharon Shoesmith was the Director of Children's Services in Harringey at the time of Peter Connelly's death he was known to most of us as Baby P.

AIBU to feel really upset -although the judge upheld the report by OFstead that her department was inadequate and that her own own review of the case was deficient.
I know that actually she didn't kill that little boy.
I know that Ed Balls could have and should have followed proper procedures if he decided that she wasn't fit for purpose
But did she really have to walk out of court with a beaming smile and say she was "over the moon"
The Badman report (independent) concluded that ''In this case the practice of the majority, both individually and collectively expressed as the culture of safeguarding and child protection at the time, was incompetent and their approach was completely inadequate to meet the challenge presented by the case of child A (Peter).''

A little boy died-because her department which was supposed to protect him missed their chances to save him because of the practices that she was over seeing. She should have had the grace to leave the court by one of the many side exits.

It is all over the news

She was incorrectly treated. After a legal case, she has been vindicated. That's all. It doesn't mean she is somehow exulting in the whole thing.

As LyingWitch says, stop scapegoating.

The public are generally a bit stupid though.

Like I said it was her reaction to the victory that got me.
Maybe she was Scapegoated-maybe she wasn't but very few in the public will think she was a Scapegoat when as smallwhitecat says she is so determined to not say sorry about herself or her department.

The question is now how accountable should public figures be?

YANBU

Birdsgottafly... If a family lose a child to the system then the rest should go too. I don't care what happens to parents who abuse their children.

Okay okay she should have crept out a side entrance with her head covered in a sack and crawled on her hands and needs to a waiting vehicle.

And she should have been wearing a big "I appear to be a smug bitch sorry for that' tee shirt.

Jeez!

Silver you cannot make her accountable, alone. CP SW do carry personal accountability. The problem in this case is the failings spread across departments, so every department whould have to be held accountable including the police.

The less she says the better tbh. The problems have been identified and hopefully rectified.

if she was a scapegoat why would she say sorry? I have been a scapegoat, believe me teh rage and incandesant anger leave no room for saying sorry for something you didn't bloody well do.

She's head honcho and for that reason her head should have rolled - just not in the way it did, according to the law.

Of course she didn't kill baby P but her role is to oversee the tax payers funded department that those vulnerable and abused kids are given the time and attention they need. Her head should have rolled in the correct way. Now she'll be in a great negotiation role for compensation under our system.

I am not making her accountable alone- others maybe should have been ALSO held accountable, but that doesn't mean she should not be held accountable because no one else is. She is accountable for her actions.
She was unfairly dismissed in practice-but was it really unfair that someone else be given a go at her role to improve things?

Lying- that would be an abuse of power. But i am not getting into discussing CP, the law stands as it does, it is wether she opperated under and used the laws in place. This case was based on her dismissal being lawful, nothing else.

giveitago £400,000 it seems, plus money for her hurt feelings.

Well then, the dismissal was lawful. Nothing else to say, is there.

her feeling "thrilled" and "over the moon" leaves a very bad taste in the mouth

may have been a legal victory, but a moral one? no

unfortunately Baby Peter is unavailable for comment

Silver1, I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps she was unfairly dismissed (or perhaps not, how was her department working generally?) but I think making herself a cause celebre when a child was killed is off-kilter. I agree she could have defended herself in a more low-key way given the circumstances.

But if 'they' had got away with 'scapegoating' her then some of the questions would not have been asked. There needed to be a full investigation with the additional information that her case sparked.

I agree with you Silver1.

The way she conducts herself gives the impression that she is more concerned with her reputation/career than with the vulnerable children/families.

wonder if she will donate any compensation awarded to childrens charities?

There were 191 children on the 'at risk' register at the time of Peter's death in Haringey. CP was found to be poor and not given the attention needed. She is all to familar with vunerable children and families.

she certainly plays the victim role very well

Please make sure that you read the threads were people are not willing to ring SS, then, to urge them to do so. Members of the general public kept silent whilst this went on.

I listened to her on Woman's Hour about 18 months ago.

She was 100% certain that she had no responsibility at all for the Baby P case OR for the fact that Ofstead failed HER department when it was inspected.

She did deserve to be sacked and it is such a shame that it was gone about in the wrong way. They should have suspended her immediately then gone through the sacking procedure.

Birdsgottafly if you turn your last sentence around
She was all too familiar with vulnerable children and families-CP was found to be poor and not given the attention needed shows how close yet far apart we are on the view of this.