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

Social workers should manage social workers, ditto teachers and doctors, imo.

I've read the whole thread and learnt a lot, and it sounds like SS was incompetent, and should never have been appointed. Also that every single agency that had contact with the family let him down.

But I wonder about the role of the press and courts in all this. It seems to me that a tragedy happened, the press were outraged and the government minister (Ed Balls) was forced to take an action that was unlawful, just to pacify the media/public opinion. A knee-jerk response, maybe. Apparently at the time he was told that he had not acted incorrectly, but this was overturned at SS's appeal, when the judges had to rectify the minister's mistake.

All this is as it should be, imo. Imagine a situation in which a high-profile figure was scapegoated for something that really was not her fault or within her control and then she lost her job because of a government minister's need to be seen to be doing something.

Noone is criticising front line staff. Well I'm not anyway. The failings were in the department, SS headed this up - she should take responsibility.

The danger is that this kind of case will put huge numbers of people off the idea of contributing by going into SW. After this, would I do it? Not a chance. I don't like the woman, but I can think of easier ways of earning £133k, and if SW becomes an area good people won't consider for fear of the responsibilities, that does not help children in danger.

My brother's training to be a social worker at the moment - I live in fear he gets sucked into child protection and hope to fucking hell he follows through his plan of getting qualified and getting the fuck out of the UK.

She was sacked without following due process - that's why she got the victory... but end of the day - she's not the one who hurt that child - master of the corporate fuckup that permitted it but the constant absolving that waste of fucking oxygen mother of his and her scumbag boyfriend makes me sick.

There are people out there who shouldn't be parents - no iffs and buts about it - social services and schools do what the heck they can - but these people should NOT be allowed to continually breed and there's naff all power to sort it out. Not the done thing to criticise the people who bring these children into the world in the first place - but that's half the bloody problem... sometimes we need a damn good pair of judgeypants with a reinforced gusset.

I just heard Sharon Shoesmith interviewed on radio 4 by John Humphrys. She did not come across well at all.

John Humphreys is a massive bellend, few people manage to give good accounts of themselves when faced with his insistent barracking interrogative approach. He was on particularly infuriating form this morning. Shoesmith began to say a lot of interesting things in her defense but she simply wasn't allowed to talk: he kept railroading her, forcing her down prepared lines of attack and repeatedly barking the same dead-end questions at her. She didn't come across well, no - he wasn't going to let her.

^that first line was supposed to be a quote from donnie's post - sorry!

emptyshell no one "sucked" into cp.sw has many potential specialism
mental health
LD
Elderly
adoption
criminal justice...
to name a few
best wishes to your brother in his career.sw is a v challenging career but satisfying too.and no one compelled to do cp.its a bit self selecting people do chose it,not so many fall into it

He's got utterly no intention of going into CP thank God - I think it would kill him (and me and my mother would give him incredibly short shrift if he even contemplated it).

why is an adult man answerable to mum and sis?up to him what path he choses surely. your incredibly short shrift is neither here nor there and shouldnt family be supportive?

Is she a good person though? I don't know what to think of her. If the newspapers are correct, she described herself as "thrilled" at the result of the case yesterday. Considering the events that led up to the case, "thrilled" is a rather strange word to use, as were many of the other comments that she made. At other times she says the right things, but you have to wonder if she is saying them because she knows they are the expected things to say, or whether she actually feels them.

Along with her inability to accept responsibility, it shows a lack of empathy. Which is a bit ironic, considering her role in protecting children from what are basically sociopaths, one of the main characteristics of whom is a lack of empathy for others.

And I don't think anyone is blaming her solely for the failings of the CPP Services of Haringey Council. Its her attitude towards whats happened and the way she has reacted. Although why did she not make herself more aware of some of the cases for which she was paid to manage? If she knew there was a lack of funding and problems within the service, why not become more involved? And yes, the parents killed Baby P, but it was she who was paid to protect children like him and specifically engaged in a role to stop it happening. In those circumstances, it may have been more morally correct to indeed fall on her sort and accept some responsibility.

people are discussing her reaction to employment tribunal as if it is response to peter connelly case.it is important to differentiate this from the professional and institutional issues raised after baby p case

employment laws are there to protect all of us inc ms shoesmith.

Scottishmummy in our area the only sw jobs going are in cp. There are very few jobs in adults services now. As a newly qualified you would never get a job in adoption as those jobs are so sought after. Of course this may well not be the situation where you live. I work in an inner city area.

The failings are in the systems and now the dramatic funding cuts. We now have no support workers and the agencies to refer to are becoming less and less.

Lots of sanctimonious comment on this thread, particularly from Silver1. Do you wonder why good people abandon the social work profession? Because the prevailing view is that SWs are personally responsible for all the horrors that can happen on their watch. What about the policy of keeping children with their families rather than taking them into care. This is standard; because it's cheaper than taking children into care. These are policy decisions imposed by government and in bad faith frankly - I'm sure Child Protection in Haringey would have worked better had it been properly funded and SWs been supported to take vulnerable children into care when obviously appropriate.

And what do you do when a family outright lies to you, which Connelly et al did?

What job do you do Silver1? Just wondering what gives you the right to judge.

Emptyshell- have you had a look at the Hovering Parent (or sister thread) your brother is a grown up and can decide what field and where he works.
At the end of the day without CP SWs a lot more children would have the fate of Peter Connelley-it takes a lot of guts and stamina to do that job, in fact any part of SW for different reasons.
Perhaps your brother isn't training for the right job if you think he can't cope-or perhaps he knows what he wants to do and needs the freedom to be able to pursue doing it.

Actually Mitford sisters it is standard to try and keep families together because of the long term impact on the child of moving them.
What do you know about trauma, attachment disorders, primal bonds of attachment.
What do you do for a living?

I work for Connexions with teenagers. Whilst I agree that it is usually better to keep children with their families, it's also cheaper that way (call me a cynic). It's much easier and cheaper to trot out the line that it's better for them to stay in the home, when in fact some children should be whipped out pronto for their own personal safety.

I would rather call you Sanctimonious.

Oh pish Silver1. All I'm saying is that there are systemic weaknesses in social care, some of which that stem from policy (Ed Balls department as was). And that judging S Shoesmith for her manner and choice of words is not very relevant or warranted from someone who is in no position to judge. Shoesmith was scapegoated and you seem to ignore that particular effort to obscure the fact that no one could save baby Peter.

What really annoys me is that you are perpetuating the scapegoating rather than grappling with the more complex issues at play here. That's why I'm making a point.

I am not judging what happened, I am saying given what happened that led to her being sacked her choice of actions and words could have been more reserved.
Trust me my reasons for knowing the systemic weaknesses of the whole process is asleep upstairs. But I also know there is a lot of good practice and procedure out there that Sharon Shoesmith could have and should have learned from

Shoesmith isn't and never has been a social worker. Criticism of her is NOT criticism of social workers. If she had taken more of an interest in social services perhaps the department might have been rather better run...

indeed dicussed this,she a teacher by training

Yeah, but there have been some posts since the last time I was on the thread saying 'ooh, this'll put people off going into child protection' or 'CP SWs work really hard'. All of which I'm sure is true but Shoesmith's not a SW. If you are brought into to manage a group of professionals who have a critical responsibility for safety, where lives are on the line if it goes wrong, you'd think you'd take an interest in the matter, wouldn't you? Maybe talk to your staff, check there are enough of them to do the job, that the ones doing safety-critical roles have the relevant training and experience, take them seriously when they are worried, particularly if they are having to go to their MPs... especially when there has already been a very high profile tragedy in your area already...

this was her reaction to employment tribunal
yesterday wasn't about reaction to peter connelly case. although that will always obviously always be discussed

Oh, come off it, she was sacked because of the gross failures in her department exposed as a result of Peter Connolly's tragic and avoidable death. She can't get away with shouting 'yippee, bring on the £500k payout, never mind about the child that died, this is a separate issue'.

Her comments about being 'thrilled' - and the rest of them made at the time - demonstrate, repeatedly, that she has no sense of being accountable, of responsibility, no empathy, no self-awareness. She is unfit to lead any department, let alone one that is responsible for keeping very vulnerable people safe. We know about Peter Connolly because he died, but I'd imagine during Shoesmith's tenure plenty of other people who use social services will have suffered from such a badly-run department.