Baby P boss Sharon Shoesmith awarded £680k payout

Tunney said:
You do realise that the current government just got rid of their most competent legal advisor, Dominic Grieve QC, because he gave them legal advice that they didn't want to hear? Failure to heed his advice is going to cost this country a lot more than £800,000.

I expect you won't be blindly voting for the Tories and their incompetence in the future?
Click to expand...

I dont blindly vote for anyone, we vote for a local mp so blindly choosing a party allegiance will invariably lead to problems. Many conservative candidates are far too socially authoritarian to get my vote, just as many lib dem candidates are too economcially authoritarian if they tend towards the social democrat side of the party as opposed to the liberal wing.

I don't agree with the tory stance on the human rights act, and didn't approve of the sacking of grieve, for the3 record.
 
Dolph said:
The idea that every problem can be solved by or caused by money is the flaw of many on the left.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the current approach, but we've seen a live experiment of funding increases improving things under the last government and it did not lead to better outcomes for people in care, in education, at risk or any other manner of tests.

The constant wailing about cuts is tiresone.
Click to expand...

Money buys services in social care, we literally have no early intervention services these days, which means everything gets referred to children's services, which means more work that takes time away from the most risky cases, which are all just a heart beat away from the next baby p.

Binning sure start and things like that won't pay off, as it means that problems dealt with before at that level now get thrust to the local authority tying up resources. It's just short sighted Tories yet again. Early intervention saves families and enables social workers time to pickup the most risky cases, at the moment we have everything to deal with, there's only so many balls you can juggle
 
MrMoonX said:
Dolph resorting to turning this into a political thing as he clearly knows **** all about this subject :rolleyes: despite the fact his beloved Tories have made the situation even worse due to brutal cuts and not paying attention to Munro who had a whole host of reforms ready, but they said it would cost too much :rolleyes: oh and Gove thinking that cos he was adopted he knows about social work :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just to throw a spanner in ..... do you think Labour wouldn't have cut ? There hasn't been one fiscally competent post war Labour government, more so the last lot and they would have had to swing the axe.
 
OldCoals said:
Based on what Ed Balls said he would have borrowed more, not cut.
Click to expand...

"On what he said"..............................yes right...............so you believe anything a politician says ?
This from the same government that got us in the right ******g mess that we are still in ?

All Labour administrations answer to everything is borrow or tax, normally both.

Ed balls would only ever live up to his name if he ever becomes Chancellor.............................he'll balls it up just like ALL of his former Labour friends.
 
Stupid knee jerk reaction by the minister... though surely even if they have gone by the book she'd still be dismissed and they'd still be able to criticise her once the process was complete... seems a bit OTT for what is essentially a bit of pre-emptive reputation damage (which she'd have been subjected to later anyway) and a premature sacking (which she'd have deserved anyway had they done things properly). At best she'd lost a few months income and got a few more press stories about herself over with sooner rather than later. She's still (IMO) an incompetent **** and if they'd gone by the book she'd still be struggling for work.
 
If I failed at my job to even a small fraction of what she did I would be kicked out of the door immediately with my P45 in hand.

I really cannot see how an award of this amount is justified.
 
Third Opinion said:
If I failed at my job to even a small fraction of what she did I would be kicked out of the door immediately with my P45 in hand.

I really cannot see how an award of this amount is justified.
Click to expand...

If the company didn't follow the correct procedures you too would be able to take them to court. Just because you are a government minister doesn't mean you can ignore employment law. Balls acted to appease the media rather than taking a little bit longer to do it properly.
 
You are actually all correct in the main but you are all wrong.

If there was a classic example of how the NHS would be desired to be by the right and a model of self-sufficiency through private work and alternative income streams then that hospital was and is Gt Ormond St. However, reports indicated very strongly that they deliberately withheld evidence. Their Chief Executive at the time after battling against the will of the medical staff at the hospital (over 50 consultants allegedly seeking her resignation) was strengthened by strong political support (note this was someone identified as one of the most influential women in London). However, apparently her time was up as revelation after revelation came out. It is alleged that to save sanction with the medical board she removed herself from the register. She has since moved onto the chief post at the Marie Curie. I guess it helps to have friends in high places well that is my opinion anyway.

One of the major doctors involved in blowing the whistle though was allegedly ostracised and pushed out and, in my opinion, has received poor compensation and a brief apology. Then you have the topic of the OP going the other way (again in my opinion). Then you have the actual treatment of Baby P. And then you have the criminal proceedings and the consequences for those people. All of that major events happened on Labour's watch.

However, we are also far more likely to get future events like these due to the massive cuts in children's services - especially in these areas. That is down to Tory governance and mismanagement of the NHS with cuts and alienation of the workforce. Children's services cuts are realistically 4% in realterms year on year at the moment. However, they aren't being equally applied for example we can see the scandal of the closure of beds for children with mental health problems which now the government has had to organise an investigation into. Maybe they shouldn't have cut them in the first place. The more favoured services are getting funded and funded well but at a cost to the less favoured ones.

Now if anything that tells me that we have a fundamental problem here that is apolitical. Something that shouldn't be used for pointscoring or for appeasing the public or the media. I also think there needs to be a real look at the consequences of events here and whether we have our priorities right. I can see three people here who have taken on positions of power - two messed up and have come out richer and the one person who did the right thing had their career destroyed. As if there wasn't a tragedy enough.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if seeing something not-legal happen and being able to comment that it's not legal makes you a fortune teller. Maybe a lawyer, or a police officer.
 
Westyfield2 said:
Lol Ed Balls.

I seem to have a memory of the legality being mentioned at the time. Was it in the press? Or was it just a friend of mine saying "Hang on, that's not legal"... and I should now hire said friend as a fortune teller?



:D
Click to expand...


You are correct - lots of people said it at the time. But as is usually the case, the government wanted to a) be seen to be "doing something", b) making sure blame settled on one person, and c) making sure blame didn't move to politically embarrassing areas like funding of Social Services.


The irony being lost on the younger member of this forum is what could loosely be called the Social Services roundabout. It goes like this:

1) Child dies while Social Services are investigating.
2) Tabloids scream blue murder without doing any investigation.
3) Stoked by the tabloids, politicians scream that Social Services must try harder.
4) Social Services start taking children into care at a much earlier stage.
5) As long as only poor children are taken into care, the tabloids don't care. Then, suddenly, a middle class child or several is/are taken into care.
6) The tabloids scream that Social Services are taking children into care too easily.
7) Stoked by the tabloids, politicians scream that Social Services must do less.
8) Social Services take far fewer children into care.
9) GOTO 1

As you can see, Baby P occurred at stage 8. And the tabloids are already floating the occasional story suggesting that we are back at stage 5. For those who are too young to see stage 5 and 6 last time, the cycle is about 15-20 years long.
 
Meridian said:
You are correct - lots of people said it at the time. But as is usually the case, the government wanted to a) be seen to be "doing something", b) making sure blame settled on one person, and c) making sure blame didn't move to politically embarrassing areas like funding of Social Services.


The irony being lost on the younger member of this forum is what could loosely be called the Social Services roundabout. It goes like this:

1) Child dies while Social Services are investigating.
2) Tabloids scream blue murder without doing any investigation.
3) Stoked by the tabloids, politicians scream that Social Services must try harder.
4) Social Services start taking children into care at a much earlier stage.
5) As long as only poor children are taken into care, the tabloids don't care. Then, suddenly, a middle class child or several is/are taken into care.
6) The tabloids scream that Social Services are taking children into care too easily.
7) Stoked by the tabloids, politicians scream that Social Services must do less.
8) Social Services take far fewer children into care.
9) GOTO 1

As you can see, Baby P occurred at stage 8. And the tabloids are already floating the occasional story suggesting that we are back at stage 5. For those who are too young to see stage 5 and 6 last time, the cycle is about 15-20 years long.
Click to expand...

This, baby P led to an increase in care proceedings due to professional anxiety caused by the moral panic over it, stoked by the press. Now recently we had an itv programme about children going into adoption too early and low and behold they had a middle class woman who is a Tory candidate imterviewed saying that her family were investigated and she thought they would take her kids away, the whole programme was garbage, they had some guy saying people who are investigated should leave the country :rolleyes:
 
What a Balls up!!

I never followed the story properly, but it seems (from my admittedly limited knowledge) that she was a scapegoat. There were dozens of people and various agencies involved in the Baby P case, but she got the boot without proper procedures being followed.

Whether she is guilty of dropping the ball or not, the government should have acted legally. It appears they did not, so she should rightly seek to take action against them.

Perhaps it will be a lesson that serves to show current and future ministers that they are not above the law.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Ed Balls thought employment law didn't apply to him and dismissed her without following the correct process.

Lesson 1 why private sector executive level contracts have defined severance terms rather than relying on standard dismissal practices.
Click to expand...

The public sector does to for senior civil servants and head of departments.

It's just that Ed Ballsup ignored them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom