Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 666428)

Head of Childrens Services at Haringey Council, Sharon Shoesmith is appealing against the sack, she lost her job in the wack of the Baby P outrage. Well the only thing I think I can say on this issue is the cheeky self centred bitch:mad:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 666710)

I suppose it all comes down to why she was sacked and the way it was done. Employment law is there to protect us all and if they sacked her against procedure then she could be up for a big payout.

Now do you really expect a local council to have sacked her correctly? ;)

Originally Posted by Less (Post 666896)

Or maybe her sacking was a knee jerk reaction? We need a Scape goat who is most vulnerable?

She may have been negligent, or maybe she was running an underfunded Department as best she could?

She may have been screaming for assistance that wasn't being offered because child welfare is only a vote winner when something like this happens.

She may even have been a selfish, I'm all right Jack sod you and your neglected kids.

But I don't know, we don't seem to have many real details.

If she was neglectful then by all means ensure she never has a position of responsibility ever again.

But if she was struggling from lack of resources, (as is the case for most departments dealing with Children), then the buck shouldn't stop with her it should be placed squarely at the door of the Minister in charge.

Originally Posted by lettie (Post 667024)

I have to agree with Less on this one. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe Shoesmith was the scapegoat????

As head of department, she may have been well aware of what was going on but be running an overstressed and underfunded department. It's all well and good for Ministers to harp on about how to deal with these situations but when staffing is inadequate for workload or inexperienced for workload then these tragedies happen and will continue to happen despite the experience or presence of a manager.

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy (Post 667123)

Well said Jaysay, words of common sense.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 667118)

Under funded, oh please, Authorities like Haringey have abundance of none jobs, carefully selected from the Jobs pages of the Guardian, with telephone number salaries, and also remember that Baby P was not the first case in this authority either, the last time this happened the same old trip came out, as in "Lessons must be learned" but they haven't and another defenceless kid ends up dead. When your paid the kind of money Shoesmith was paid she SHOULD have known just what was going on in her own department, as I've said before the buck stops firmly at her desk, and if she didn't know she shouldn't have been in the job in the first place:mad:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 667118)

Under funded, oh please, Authorities like Haringey have abundance of none jobs, carefully selected from the Jobs pages of the Guardian, with telephone number salaries, and also remember that Baby P was not the first case in this authority either, the last time this happened the same old trip came out, as in "Lessons must be learned" but they haven't and another defenceless kid ends up dead. When your paid the kind of money Shoesmith was paid she SHOULD have known just what was going on in her own department, as I've said before the buck stops firmly at her desk, and if she didn't know she shouldn't have been in the job in the first place:mad:

Originally Posted by lettie (Post 667273)

Oh dear, it looks like I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of the budget and internal workings of Social Services and their staffing levels and caseloads.:) In my reasoned opinion, the buck stops with the parents who, IMO, were the perpetrators of this tragedy.

Shoesmith may come over as hard faced, but until I have access to both sides of the story, I shall not be referring to anyone as a "cheeky, self-centred bitch." I will reserve my judgement until the full facts are available. I know from bitter experience that the bigger the cock up, the greater the need to blame someone else and drag people down. The people to be blamed here are the parents, who, brought a child into the world who they were totally incapable of looking after.

Originally Posted by lettie (Post 667273)

Oh dear, it looks like I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of the budget and internal workings of Social Services and their staffing levels and caseloads.:) In my reasoned opinion, the buck stops with the parents who, IMO, were the perpetrators of this tragedy.

Shoesmith may come over as hard faced, but until I have access to both sides of the story, I shall not be referring to anyone as a "cheeky, self-centred bitch." I will reserve my judgement until the full facts are available. I know from bitter experience that the bigger the cock up, the greater the need to blame someone else and drag people down. The people to be blamed here are the parents, who, brought a child into the world who they were totally incapable of looking after.

Originally Posted by yerself (Post 668595)

From 'Torygraph.co.uk"

The decision was taken today by a different panel of councillors from the ones who made the original decision.

"Ms Shoesmith will not be returning to work in Haringey. She will not receive any compensation package. She will not receive any payment in lieu of notice."

Employment law experts say Ms Shoesmith could be in line for a payout of up to £173,000 if she can prove that the council was wrong to sack her.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 668762)

And she such an arrogant bitch she will probably try

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 668832)

If she was unfairly sacked then she should try.