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

Agree, Edam.

Also some of the responsibililty for this situation has to be taken by the people who appointed her as manager in the first place.

However, it's far more constructive now for everyone involved to look at what happened and try to reduce the possibility of it happening again. I don't know who SS has been replaced with, but it is vital that social workers, like teachers and nurses get the support they need (sorry to state the obvious). What worries me is how that is going to happen under this government.

I can't trawl through 8 pages - this might have been mentioned before.

She was brought in to head up that department after the Victoria Climbie case.

One can only assume that the department was rotten to the core and she inherited a poisoned chalice. However, it's nigh on impossible to sack council or public sector workers - heavily unionised.

However living in London and knowing the level of population (and it's ethnicity) in that area, I sincerely doubt there were sufficient staff to deal with all the peculiarities that arise from areas with high levels of immigration, plus 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants) a thoroughly multi cultural hotchpotch of beliefs etc .... not that the West African Voodoo beliefs had anything to so with Baby P.

The whole case was an appalling shambles by EVERYONE from the doctors to the police to the SS.

She wasn't entirely responsible. Although the buck must stop at the top.

In defense of social workers it must be a completely harrowing job, no wonder the lasting rate is roughly 5 years. I would imagine you become quite hardened to the depths of humanity and possibly desensitised after a period of time. Either that or you would be carrying all that emotional baggage round with you.

to reiterate this was about employment tribumial
ms shoesmith is as entitled to protection under employment law as any of us.

away from the employment case,professionally she has a shocking record as does the LA (Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly) but that has been thoroughly examined via Laming report.i completely understand the visceral reaction to her

but the principle of due process in employment has to apply,or else frankly it could be any sw,dr chosen to be sacked.

this is a joyless moment,as it doesn't put anyone in good light not the LA ,not her.and LA going to be out of pocket

Baby P's carers were manipulative liars as well as murderers. I don't think SW are psychic.

Sharon Shoesmith has also spoken out defending other SW who were scapegoated like her.

"Sharon Shoesmith has also spoken out defending other SW who were scapegoated like her."

She wasn't scapegoated - she was dismissed unfairly following from a devastating Ofsted report - a report vindicated in the same trial as has found in her favour - re dimissal. Had Haringley followed correct procedure she would have almost certainly been dismissed anyway, however Ed Balls wanted a scalp to appease The Sun.

Her Radio 4 interview - to me at least - showed how unpleasant an individual she is. Her attitude sums up all that is wrong with local government management - people happy to take the cash but not prepared to accept the responsibility (seeing as she "doesn't do blame") when it goes wrong.

The only saving grace from this entire fiasco is that her name will forever be associated with the death of Peter Connelly.

Who heard her on Radio 4 - John Humphries she got away to easily. She said he didn't know what went on. That Social workers have to wait 4 months to get appointments with doctors, that police dont allocate incident numbers. What he should have said was WASNT THAT YOUR JOB TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND SORT THAT OUT but unfortunateley he just let it go by.

Who thinks she should get compensation when a Child died ?

for the hard of thinking,this was employment tribunal.not compensation about baby p case

the appeal was about observance and undertaking of due process in her dismissal,fact that she wasnt dismissed according employment laws

this wasnt a ruling about her or departmental competencies.thas been covered in serious case review and Laming report

employment law are there to protect us all, inc ms shoesmith

amen to that

a lot of people colluding in this poor mite's death - and i hope each of them lives with that for the rest of their lives

dear god,now its the well id have done better myself crew
yes yes of course you would.
just you keep telling yourself that
everything is clear with full hindsight,a key board and no onerous case-load.oh and no statutory duties,and no mountain of paperwork,and no ther visits to undertake

of course you and all other know it alls would have done better

yes of course,so go fast track your skills to the LA,they'd love a knowitall like you on their staff

chop chop get to that phone,bet yure gagging to share your sofa knowledge

I expect that many of the other 30 odd cases the inexperienced sw was incharge of had equally revolting homes. The police and Drs are also partly responsible. To say you hope someone wakes up every morning and feels gut wrenching shame is awful.

sw cannot remove child without warrant.only police can remove without warrant if they believe circumstance dangerous,and in such case police would need to demonstrably prove concerns within few days

but this notion a sw can just bundle up a child and go is completely erroneous.there are legal checks and balances.and rightly so

I totally agree how hard it is for social workers. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
But this particular case screamed abuse, and that the social workers missed it is unbelievable, it must have been staring them in the face. This is something that I just don't get.
As for Sharon Shoesmith, unfortunately , she strikes me as the sort of person who can still look in the mirror and tells herself "Oh poor me, it's not fair that I lost my job".
The death of Peter seems to be secondary.

as unpalatable as one may find ms shoesmith,she has right to protection under employment law.and that is what the ruling on Friday was.the dismissal process wasnt adhered to.

we are al entoitled to protection under law,if process has been breached

for a proper review of peter connelly case- the serious case review and laming report are harrowing reading

no one came out of this well though.certainly not ms shoesmith and not the la.

Scottishmummy she has the right of protection- BUT she doesn't have to gloat about her victory. Not with a smile and a bare glance at the situation that brought all of this into being.
Ofstead-who inspected her department
Graham Badman-who conducted an independent inquiry
The trial judge (at Tracey Connelley et al's trial)
They have all said she ran a shoddy show.
It is just her who has said she didn't.
Yes Ed Balls humiliated her, by sacking her on live TV, yes she has a case for unfair dismissal- but she doesn't have to gloat.
This thread was never to have a dig at SWs. It was a dig at a head of department who has consistently refused to take her head out of the sand and accept the responsibility that she was paid to take on.

friday was employment tribunal not ruling about baby p
so like it or not she had her relieved moment about the employment tribunal.
posters habitually mixing the employment tribunal reaction up with the baby p case is going off at tangent.

she had no need to sneak out,or leave by side door as suggested.this particular case eg employment tribunal she was the wronged party

I'm sure she was immensely relieved as she and her 2 daughters were pauperised by her unfair dismissal.

The fact is , she was unfairly dismissed. The proper procedures were not adhered to and therefore she had the right to sue. However, the woman does herself no favours , as she comes across as smug and self satisfied.

employment law is there to protect all of us
but no one came out of this well at all
a huge financial cost borne to public sector

Also, the judges did not look into the accuracy or not of the OFSTED report. The report which was altered after the media outcry. Of course it was just a conincidence that the head of OFSTED was married to a government minister. The whole thing stinks. Guess what teachers don't want to take responsibility for CP if they did they would become SW. It was the labour government that decided the ministry should be for Children schools and families rather than education. They were the ones that started the process that means that most directors of children services are either sc or education based and therefore don't know about hald their responsibilities.

Ultimately if we are saying that the buck stops at the top, surely it should have been Ed Balls who went not Sharon Shoesmith

Her daughters are two grown women, one worked with a friend of DH in a very lucrative job so she is hardly going to be a pauper- she had a healthy divorce settlement prior to this, pauperism is living hand to mouth on the breadline, pauper does not apply to her.