Baby P boss Sharon Shoesmith awarded £680k payout

[cheesyboy]

Surely in a case such as this; the complainant would be able to sue for wrongful dismissal, due to correct process not being followed

But

Surely if the defendant could show that, had correct process been followed, the complainant would have been dismissed anyway, then there should be no, or minimal, financial award?

Ergo, should we assume (I've not read up on the details) that the evidence against Shoesmith wouldn't have amounted to enough to terminate employment, even under correct process?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Solution

So we should get rid of the tabloids as they serve no useful purpose methinks.

 

[Tefal]

Surely in a case such as this; the complainant would be able to sue for wrongful dismissal, due to correct process not being followed

But

Surely if the defendant could show that, had correct process been followed, the complainant would have been dismissed anyway, then there should be no, or minimal, financial award?

Ergo, should we assume (I've not read up on the details) that the evidence against Shoesmith wouldn't have amounted to enough to terminate employment, even under correct process?

the judge recommended a 33k payout. not 600k

 

[mattyfez]

Yes he is, but the sun is also to blame for scapegoating shoesmith

Wasn't the Sun a labour supporting paper at the time, switching allegiance about a year before the conservative government came back to power

 

[anything I don't mind]

This is why it always pays to work in the public sector.

 

[matt_fsr]

On the face of it it does seem to be a disgustingly large payout, but lets face it.... who's going to employ her in future?

 

[RDM]

So we should get rid of the tabloids as they serve no useful purpose methinks.

I would rather have to put up with the tabloids and keep a free press.

 

[pitchfork]

Well done Mr Ed Balls, not only did the child die, no one got the blame, nothing got better, and you couldn't even manage to sack someone properly.
Idiot.

He's a Politician - they don't have feelings, they're cold hearted scum who only care about themselves.

 

[Werewolf]

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.

That sounds depressingly familiar and about right.

I know a family who had, if memory serves 20-30 years of continuous fostering* (including various qualifications and courses) always with one or two foster children in addition to their own, and at about stage 8 they were looking after some kids who showed all the classic signs of very serious abuse (they were in care due to neglect), yet the social services wanted to send them back to their mother and father.
This was after the foster parents raised concerns and when they took it past their primary contacts head (when she ignored the concerns), they were basically kicked out of fostering as no longer meeting the requirements. But when about two years later the local social services desperately needed foster families they were suddenly ok again.

Social services has been a political football and under continuous pressure to sway one way or the other for decades as you say.

*This is going back to when most foster parents (including these) were basically unpaid except for a small stipend to cover the costs of having another kid in the house.

 

[mike gunnz]

That sounds depressingly familiar and about right.

I know a family who had, if memory serves 20-30 years of continuous fostering* (including various qualifications and courses) always with one or two foster children in addition to their own, and at about stage 8 they were looking after some kids who showed all the classic signs of very serious abuse (they were in care due to neglect), yet the social services wanted to send them back to their mother and father.

It's all very well implying that social services were wrong to want to send the children back to their birth parents but every case is different and it's rarely a binary decision. The parents in question may have done the work social services requested as a precursor to the children returning home - who knows? As we all know, the evidence shows that long-term outcomes can be poorer for children who remain looked after for too long depending on their respective ages. It's a difficult decision to return a child to a dysfunctional home but often a decision social workers have to make. Parenting has to be 'good enough' not perfect.

This was after the foster parents raised concerns and when they took it past their primary contacts head (when she ignored the concerns), they were basically kicked out of fostering as no longer meeting the requirements.

**How do you know the concerns were ignored? What if their concerns were taken into account but the social worker and their line manager, who ultimately has to make the decision, made that decision based on an appraisal of all the facts, their own professional judgement and their experiential knowledge? Whether the foster carer agrees with the decision or not is irrelevant and it doesn't necessarily make that decision wrong. And anyway, it's not the foster carers' decision to make.

Social services has been a political football and under continuous pressure to sway one way or the other for decades as you say.

I agree to an extent. Social services and by extension social workers are employed by the State. They derive their power and authority from the state and are there to enact the State's will as prescribed by statute and guidance. It's to be expected that decision making will be influenced by the explicit and implicit imperatives that hold sway at that time.

**Then again you may be right and the social workers in question were just not that good at their job.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Danthus]

Did anyone just see the documentary on the BBC?

 

[cm1179]

Did anyone just see the documentary on the BBC?

yes. a more and much needed balanced opinion.

frustrating how the top of the pecking order will probably never have to answer for their actions but i did respect her and her fellow colleagues for participating.

i'd say she deserved more tbh. what a complete and utter mess that was. shame on the nhs imo.