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

I don't think you can really pay someone enough to be responsible for every childs life. I think her salary was what you'd expect for someone who runs a department of thousands and manages hundreds of people.

Why was it ok for the government to act unlawfully but not her depertment? two rights certainly do not make a wrong.

Yeah amazing isn't it Serenitysutton. I really have no sympathy for her at all. Countless people have lost their jobs, got minimal redundancy payments, or even been sacked for much less incompetence than she has shown. Yet because she has somehow managed to get into the "elite" of public sector management, she manages to engineer herself a good payout (although in relative terms, for what she was claiming for, its not that high). You have to say her real skills are in knowing how to play the system, rather than actually doing her job. If the public sector weren't full of selfish, incompetent people like this, then there would be more money for much needed services.

True, BGF, and some of their team managers left a lot to be desired as well!

Serenity-i agree, however she is responsible to carry out CP law and procedure and she didn't, no SW or manager can be held responsible for a life.

Haringay struggled for staff after V Climbie and because of that got less than competent staff in CP. If other departments had of also done what they were supposed to though Peter wouldn't have died.

Birdsgottafly
You said however she is responsible to carry out CP law and procedure and she didn't

Which is true and which is why I think she should not be so smug about her "victory"

I think I said this at the time, Sharon Shoesmith may well have deserved to loose her job, but that decision should have been made soley based on what she did/ did not do. The way it seemed at the time was that Sharon Shoesmith was sacked because the Sun newspaper and other tabloids were baying for blood.
I don't know the full details of the case, I do know that if anyone mentions baby P Sharon Shoesmiths name immediately comes to mind - without googling do you know the names of baby p's mum or the boyfriend - the people that did actually kill him? I don't, and yet what they did was so much worse than Sharon Shoesmith.

But thje government, by sacking her was saying that they can do what they are criticising her for, but i agree that she should never have been photographed smilling.

Nancy- she failed in her duty, in a way it is as bad. She failed not only in her duty but to uphold SW values and code of practice. It makes all SW jobs harder and more difficult and certainly doesn't help abused children.

being crap at your job is as bad as killing a child? Really?
I am sorry I don't accept that what she did is even comprable to what the mother did to her child.

I am not denying other people could have and should have acted differently- I am saying she did not carry out the procedures that she was trained and qualified to do, this alone might have prevented Baby P's death, and therefore she should not be over the moon and grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

without googling do you know the names of baby p's mum or the boyfriend

absolutely

and their vile faces

Monstamunch - I can remember the pictures, but I could not tell you their names and i honestly believe that most people would be the same

steven barker and tracey connelly

and that is honestly hand on heart without googling

Nancy the mother was held accountable-she was tried along with her boyfriend and her lodger and sent to prison, she has lost her other children and I have no doubt that she leads a very limited existence in prison because of her action and inaction-that said we as a society recognize that there will sadly be parents like her, and so we set up a child protection system to protect those children, setting up the system is not enough for it to work established training and legislation must be used, this is where Sharon Shoesmith failed in her responsibility to implement that.
No she didn't kill that boy, but if she had done her job properly he might now be living the life of my little boy, adopted-damaged by abuse yes, but with the hope of a future.

and jason someone, cant remember his surname

Nancy- her ineffectiveness allowed Peter to die from his injuries before they were detected and acted on. I speak as a CP SW, who has had to along with collegues study and discuss this and othe child deaths. She should have been more on the ball are you familer with Victoria Climbie which happened in the same LA in 2007?

I don't want to take the thread off it's course but T Connelly was brought up in an abusive background. Peter was, if he had lived probably, heading the same way (into an abusive adult), it was a continuation of abuse and it is for professionals to step in and break the cycle, even if he had lived, Shoesmith would have failed by not removing him. The department has onl;y been found to be failing because of his death but in truth it was failing without a child death occuring, thats not good enough.

Sharon shoesmith has been made a scapegoat.

She has been made to take personal responsibility for the failings of numerous individuals across multiple departments when actually the failings were within the system.

It doesn't matter whether her unfair dismissal has been overturned or not, her name will be for ever linked with baby p in such a way that she is almost seen as being the one who killed him. Does anyone remember the name of the man who actually did kill him? no? well IMO that says a lot.

She was incompetent and she ran an incompetent department - that, amongst other things, sent SWs who were not experienced in child protection into the case conference about Peter.

When a Peter died, horribly and avoidably, instead of apologising, she strutted about and defended her department, even claiming there had been 'examples of excellent practice'. IIRC she commissioned a cover-up report by 'friendly' people that didn't look at the key evidence. It took the independent Ofsted report to reveal the truth.

The woman deserved to be sacked. But Haringey should indeed have followed proper procedures to do it.

Btw, it's deeply wrong that the previous government kept asking Lord Laming to investigate wrongdoing by social services. When he was an inspector of SS, he failed to investigate allegations of organised child abuse in Islington children's homes properly. Had he done so, he might have made a difference to the Connolly family when Peter's mother was still a child. Revolting that he sat in judgment over this case when he had played his own part in allowing the cycle of abuse to continue to Peter's generation.

Shoesmith herself had no experience in SS when she took up the post - her background was in education. The then government brought education and social services together to create 'children's services'. She should have recognised her limitations and taken further training, spent time with social workers in her borough and outside to work out what was actually happening to the children they had a duty to protect. Especially given Haringey's tragic history with Victoria Climbie.

Wannabe you might wanna read the thread this point occurs further up and yes a lot of us can remember the names, no Shoesmith did not kill this boy but she did not use her powers and abilities to keep him safe, so yes given that was the job she took on some people can feel she should share some blame.

No-one made Shoesmith take the job. I don't find it credible that she thinks she should be regarded as some kind of martyr for doing so and continues that on to her sacking. The whole point of being a departmental manager is that it entails management and greater responsibility than those under you.

"She has been made to take personal responsibility for the failings of numerous individuals across multiple departments when actually the failings were within the system."

individuals and systems she was paid to manage.

She should have resigned. Attempting to cling on to her job, when she had been exposed as inadequate, was an insult to Peter's memory.