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 wonder why she didn't resign? Could it have been that she was hanging on for a compromise agreement, with a golden handshake?

Now that Nijinsky would be quite sickening if true. I prefer the thought that she is living in La La land-but I can see why you might think that way.

Honestly pictures of her in the press are stomach churning-she really does look delighted-this all came about because of the death of a child under the watchful eye of her department, following on from the death of another child under the radar of her department, a case where she should have learned lessons even if at the time she wasn't in charge, and she is "over the moon"

I wonder why she didn't resign?

well according to her at the time, she did nothing wrong.

From the Independent at the time

"Sharon Shoesmith defended her role in the Baby Peter scandal yesterday, describing the nationwide fury after the case as "absurd".

Ms Shoesmith, who was sacked as director of children's services at Haringey council in north London in 2008, admitted that errors of judgement had been made by her staff but insisted she bore no personal responsibility for the tragedy.

Her dismissal was technically flawed and I hope her compensation amounts to 1p, vile arrogant woman.

Whether her sacking was fair/legally right or not, her response today was just horribly insensitive and self-regarding

Monstamunch Oh my word. Oh my word.

I'd love a job like that. Be in a responsible position, get paid a lot of money, but have no responsibility. Sounds ideal

I have posted on another thread about this but am so pissed off have to post again! I agree with theDudesmummy. She should have taken the hit as a well paid executive. They are paid alot to take the responsibility and a child died 'on her watch'. I think she is sickening and vile to persue this in the circumstances.

She lacks total integrity and compassion in my view.

I suppose the way she sees it, we may think she is vile and sickening, but at least she's happy and we are in her eyes absurd to make such a fuss.

quite like this from the guardian by diane abbott

'All along, Shoesmith has appeared to think that it is wrong she should ultimately take responsibility for the death of that little boy. She seemed to believe that she earned her £133,000 salary through the elegance of her report writing alone. And she appears to have no notion that the buck should stop with her and that there should have consequences.'

That's my view

Agree with giveitago. She has said what I wanted to, but in a better way and with a better quote. She was fine with taking the salary, but did not do the job properly.

Yup - she didn't cause the death of baby p or the suffering of other children however she WAS the head of that department - there would be no department or salary to go with it if it weren't for the demand for child protection.

She was head of it in her area and so the buck does stop with her. Her constant manouvering to get out of it makes me uncomfortable. I couldn't give a shit if she gives the money to charity - she was unfit for post and it's horrible that she's spent all her energy trying to prove she's not in anyway responsible for her job description.

If she had resigned and commented on how devastated she was and made useful comments about the failures of her department, so that they could be avoided in future, then she might have regained some respect. But as it is, she gives the appearance of being more concerned with the money and how it has adversely affected her. She does seem to also have an issue over taking the responsibility her job and salary entailed.

I really hope that she does not manage to get another highly paid role, as so many failed managers seem to do after getting golden handshakes (not that she got one).

I am not sure she could go anywhere to do with children again- I have been surprised in the past by appointments, but who wants to give a position of responsibility to someone who refuses to be responsible?

I think you'll find she gets a well paid job fairly soon. her case was about her unfair dismissal not how she ran her Dept. so all she has to do is talk well at interview

'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.'

A little boy died because his mother, her boyfriend and the lodger killed him.

It's entirely possible SS deserved to be sack, there is evidence to that effect.

But proper procedure was not followed, hence, her appeal was upheld.

She should not have to live as a pariah because of this. She did not personally kill a child.

I am aware who killed him, and I am equally aware who was paid to be responsible to ensure he was safe from the people who did kill him

She is a pariah because she considers herself blameless and she isn't. But for her management of her department he could have been saved.

But she chose to run a failing department that was not competent in carrying out its legal duty to protect children, she chose to attempt a cover-up instead of taking responsibility and she has never accepted any responsibility (so what the hell was Haringey paying her for?). Until today when magically she suddenly remembered to say it was very sad that Peter died. Crocodile tears years after the fact.

Then a case needs to be brought against her in the criminal courts rather than the level of vigilantism going on.

Thats a good point. The Government under which she was promoted was very big on increasing corporate criminal liability, and there have been a few high profile cases of parents and teachers being held criminally liable for the deaths of children under their care. In fact, if social services were contracted out to a private company, would the directors have been held criminally liable for the death of Baby P?

Her response at the time was bizzare and wrong, and she should have resigned. Unfortunately Ed Balls responded to the hysteria and sacked her without following the correct processes. At the time I thought this would come back to bite him on the bum and it has. It's a horrid horrid situation but they really did set themselves up for this moment. What about the lawyers who decided that the threshold for taking him into care had not been reached? Or the management at GOSH? I am not for one second saying that she shouldn't hold some of the accountability for not getting that child away from his abusers, but that the government should have ensured once she was gone she could not come back. They didn't, and here she is.

i think the doctor who missed the broken back ran away to another country rather than face being struck off

Icoulddoitbetter I never thought I would start a sentence like this but...
To be fair to Ed Balls, he had two independent inquiries tell him that she was not running a good department and should not be in post, he took the advice of these reports, after she had had a long time to
a) Say sorry will try harder
b) Say Adieu and fall on her sword
c) Apply for a transfer to a department that would thrive under her management

EB was foolish in how he fired her, but I would not say he was rash, as others have suggested he probably considered this a small price to pay to get her out of office quickly. It was not his decision alone, a panel of councilors dismissed her.
We often assume that the trial brought all of this incompetence to light, it didn't, even before the trial questions were being muttered that her department might have been at fault.
It was a horrific case, and sadly the child was very attractive so media grabbing, Harringey had form for a Child Protection department that was not up to scratch and her role was to ensure that the department did improve. Sadly the lessons learned in both cases are uncomfortably similar, she could see where her actions or inaction would go, yet she did nothing. At the time there was a lot of reporting of members of her team writing to MPs and ministers (who did nothing) saying that if she continued running the department as she did a child would die, and a child did die.

Yes the committee she headed up to look into this did say that she and her team behaved impeccably, but the investigations that she wasn't a part of did not.
It is almost inevitable that she will get a large pay off, but I can only hope that her replacement has ensured that children in Harringey are better protected.
To say that public were absurd to create a fuss about this child, and to say that she bears no responsibility when her job title tells a different story shows that she was in the wrong job and needed to be out of that job.
The price to pay may well be a pay off that many of us feel she doesn't deserve, but who knows maybe some child living with abuse under her watch will sue in the future and she will lose it all again.
She will probably never be employed in the public sector again, and the private sector has it's reputation to consider so without a pay out she faces 10 years to retirement with little income. Which is why I feel if she is going to take it she should have done it discreetly, not rejoicing because she has beaten the system.