[Closed] Sharon Shoesmith - right verdict?

My view - 'they' decided she was going to be hung out to dry and made the facts fit.

She should have taken responsibility but the issues are systemic and not wholly within her control - there were others equally culpable.

I am very surprised she lost her appeal - I doubt this is the end of it.

Evidence was doctored to stitch her up. The politicos forced thru her sacking without the proper powers to do so. An absolute disgrace. Why is no one from the police or Healthcare sacked? The chief exec of the local NHS and the local chief constable are equally culpable.

Due process not followed.

But TJ, surely she was ultimately responsible for the social service the child didn't get?

I'm not saying there aren't others to blame, but she shouldn't be allowed to get away with it?

She's a Sacrificial Goat. Others are culpable, but will never face justice. 🙁

goeffj - if due process had been followed and she had been found to be culpable I would agree with you. You could equally argue that the home secretary was as culpable. The buck stops where?

It's about time senior officials carried the can for once.

+1 on that gilchrist!

TJ+1

IIRC her dept was running about 23% understaffed. Despite attempting to recruited from overseas and everything else in her power she could not reduce this. The only thing would have been to increase the pay to increase recruitment - but she was not able to do this as it was not within her power.

Is it her fault they were understaffed and what staff they had were inexperienced which led to the tragedy? She might have done everything in her power to prevent it but it was political decisions from her bosses that prevented her recruiting the experienced staff she needed to run the service properly

As there was no due process over her sacking tho we probably will never know now if it was her fault or the fault of her bosses

So was the deputy director of children's services, two other managers and a social worker also wrongly dismissed?

Sounds to me like the folk who were responsible got what they deserved in a pretty comprehensive clear out.

She was Head of Children's Services FFS. If the buck doesn't at least include her then who does it include? Senior managers like Shoesmith are paid handsomely to manage. If she couldn't manage the department in a way that she considered was essential then she should have resigned, not bleat about cutbacks and an inability to recruit.

geoffj - the answer is we don't know as there was no due process just summary dismissal.

if your dept is understafffed and you cannot recruit then you have two choices - try to do as good a job as you can or quit.

The real issue is should she have done something that she did not do to prevent this tradgedy or did she do something she should not have done.

We simply do not know. It might be right she was dismissed it might not. However sacking her without due process to pacify the tabloids is simply wrong

The real issue is should she have done something that she did not do to prevent this tradgedy or did she do something she should not have done.

Surely this is implicit. A little boy died because of (in part) a failure of her department. There were very clear failures of process by social workers. She was responsible for the actions of those social workers.

Short of staff or not, it was not one or two single failings that led to Baby P's death but repeated failings of her team over a 17 month period IIRC.

She is without a shadow of doubt IMO culpable for these failings. If she had felt all along she did not have the resources to deliver the service she was accountable for then she should have resigned a long time ago.

You simply cannot can not keep on accepting the benefits of your position, fail to deliver and then cry wolf when it is far too late. As said above she was Head of Children Services FFS not some lowly employee.

Guys - other than "the buck stops here" then we do not know. We do know that shoesmith was highly regarded as very capable. Was she givena tasks that was impossible?

Others are culpable as well including the chief constable and the chief exec of the NHS whos organisations also failed to prevent the tragedy.

take your argument to its conclusion and the home secretary should have resigned as well.

You are judging without evidence. The evidence that we are missing here. It might be right that she carries the can - but without evidence and due process we do not know

take your argument to its conclusion and the home secretary should have resigned as well.

Not at all, the Home Secretary was not directly responsible for the actions of social workers in Haringey Council's Children's Services.

You are judging without evidence.

There is plenty of evidence out there - hence the as yet unchallenged dismissals of the other staff I mentioned above.

Oh and when the hell did cynic-al agree with anything you said 😉

TJ+1

geoffj - Member
Oh and when the hell did cynic-al agree with anything you said

TJ + another

However sacking her without due process to pacify the tabloids is simply wrong

+1

TJ+1 - I think that due process was not followed, so whether she should have been sacked or not is a separate issue. Knee-jerk tabloid sensationalism and appeasement was the sour flavour of the day. If all the evidence points to her ineptitude then fair enough - I doubt if all the facts are known though.