Shoesmith to appeal sacking

jaysay · 06-01-2009, 10:33

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

cashman · 06-01-2009, 11:23

shoesmith, sounds like a load of cobblers to me.

SPUGGIE J · 06-01-2009, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

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

She was the boss and paid to make decissions which in the case of baby P she made a mess off. As head of the unit she has to carry the can. She has the right to appeal the same as anyone else. Due to a serious lack of moral fibre she will go ahead dispite the fact it will drag up more heartache and pain. If you take the the big jobs and are paid well for it then you have to take the fall. If she could have got away with it she would have hung out some poor sap for this mess and carried on as though nothing happened.

Neil · 07-01-2009, 01:46

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?

jaysay · 07-01-2009, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

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?

In this case yes I do Neil, especially with it being so high profile and in the public eye, they'll have dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts in the legal department before taking action. When you earn 6 figure salaries running public services, the buck stops at your desk. The thing is with this woman she was so bloody errigant whenever she was interviewed and continually trying to blame other people for her own shortcomings.

magpie · 07-01-2009, 16:47

and she can sleep at night........ I really don't know how:

Less · 07-01-2009, 18:18

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.

lettie · 07-01-2009, 23:05

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.

yerself · 07-01-2009, 23:30

I'm in agreement with Less & Lettie, until we know all the facts, not just the ones the media want us to know, how can we judge?

Gordie · 07-01-2009, 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

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.

I fully agree with you less, it`s easy for people to jump to conclusions
when knowing very little of this lady`s work circumstances.

jaysay · 08-01-2009, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

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.

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

Boeing Guy · 08-01-2009, 10:51

Well said Jaysay, words of common sense.

cashman · 08-01-2009, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

Well said Jaysay, words of common sense.

agreed sadly thats whats missing in much of the "Higher Echelons" of our country.

andrewb · 08-01-2009, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

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

Very true. I find it hard to believe that the department are stuck for cash when the person who replaced Shoesmith, who earned £140,000, is now earning £200,000.

Taggy · 08-01-2009, 18:05

As soon as i saw Shoesmith interviewed on TV i'm afraid i took an instant dislike to her!. Absolutely no empathy or humility displayed at all. I'm not at all surprised that shes had the gall to launch an appeal. I just hope that she ends up being very dissapointed by the outcome. But in todays society i'm afraid its more likely to be me whose dissapointed in the outcome!

Best Regards - Taggy