Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Sharon Shoesmith


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,464 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:31 PM

Call me green if you like but I wold expect anyone, anyone to be so upset and traumatised by such events happening under them that they would slink away into the background and not make a fuss about how badly they had been treated. Regardless of whether any technicalities were not followed. It's perhaps my fault for expecting people to have a conscience.

 

To be honest, if I'd been humiliated and made a scapegoat I'd be out for as much as I could get.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#42 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,544 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:36 PM

To be honest, if I'd been humiliated and made a scapegoat I'd be out for as much as I could get.

You wouldn't feel any responsibility to the child? 



#43 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,464 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:39 PM

You wouldn't feel any responsibility to the child? 

I'd be quite angry if it had been openly stated, with no evidence, that it was my personal failings that led to its death.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#44 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,544 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:44 PM

I'd be quite angry if it had been openly stated, with no evidence, that it was my personal failings that led to its death.

But you are the head, it's obvious you aren't going to kill people but your incompetence might lead to it. 

 

The bottom line is, and I have experienced this in my work, is that when you are #1, other people may mess up but it is ultimately YOU that carry the can. If you disagree or are incapable of understanding this, then get off the pot and let someone else have a go. 



#45 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,759 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:48 PM

dmc0141l.jpg



#46 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,819 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:55 PM

But you are the head, it's obvious you aren't going to kill people but your incompetence might lead to it. 

 

The bottom line is, and I have experienced this in my work, is that when you are #1, other people may mess up but it is ultimately YOU that carry the can. If you disagree or are incapable of understanding this, then get off the pot and let someone else have a go. 

 

I can see why your last employer thought it was okay to unfairly dismiss you.  You're a doormat and you expect others to be so too.

 

If this lady was at fault, then it would have been an open and shut disciplinary case, albeit one that may have dragged out for a few months, there'd have been no notice period, no compensation etc.  Alternatively she may have just taken the easy route and resigned, collecting her notice period salary whilst on gardening leave.  Either option would have been very easy to facilitate if appropriate, and both would have cost the tax payer considerably less.

 

If you want to aim your indignation at anyone, aim it at the idiotic Ed Balls.  She has not been shown to have done anything wrong.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#47 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,759 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:10 PM

yes she has. The only issue has been that of process, not of responsibility.  Still, what does she care now she's milked the taxpayer for half a million. She'll be back with her feet in the trough,  mark my words. 

 

http://www.ofsted.go...l-review-appeal


Edited by JohnM, 29 October 2013 - 05:13 PM.


#48 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,153 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:11 PM

But you are the head, it's obvious you aren't going to kill people but your incompetence might lead to it. 

 

The bottom line is, and I have experienced this in my work, is that when you are #1, other people may mess up but it is ultimately YOU that carry the can. If you disagree or are incapable of understanding this, then get off the pot and let someone else have a go. 

Using that example, Ed Balls should have resigned or been sacked.  After all, this wasn't an isolated incident, other similar things happened across the UK and he was the responsible Cabinet level minister at the time.  He quickly avoided being tarnished by putting lots of spin against one fairly mid-ranking manager and making her the sole scapegoat.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#49 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,544 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:23 PM

Why on earth would I get more indignant about Ed Balls not following procedures instead of a woman who oversaw the department that had a child die in such appalling circumstances?

#50 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,759 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 05:28 PM

Ed Balls faces a penalty for failure. The electorate can and will give him the sack.

 

Shoesmith get a bonus for failure..half a million . Common enough across the public sector ..at;least according to Private Eye.

 

Mind you, its different if you are a lollypop man. see http://www.examiner....ollipop-6189154

 

Commence countdown: 10...9...8...7...6...5...



#51 TheTerminator

TheTerminator
  • Coach
  • 2,071 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:29 PM

The Serious Case Review of the Peter Connelly tragedy revealed some massive flaws in the systems and processes used by local authority Social Services nationwide. It went on to make recommendations with the intention of remedying those problems, which does in fact suggest that those systems and processes were broken. Shoesmith might have been a pretty rotten administrator in the role she occupied, but it was the professionals working way, way under her - battling ridiculous workloads, devious and abusive parents, lack of training, reams of unhelpful red tape, copious amounts of paperwork, poor quality supervision and the mental stress of an extremely tough occupation, who failed to identify that this poor child was seriously in danger. Shoesmith was nothing more than a convenient scapegoat. That's not to say that I agree she should have been handed such an enormous sum of compensation, though.

Edited by TheTerminator, 29 October 2013 - 06:41 PM.

Posted Image


#52 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,544 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:51 PM

So if she isn't responsible for anything and if things go wrong, not to blame, what is the point of employing her?

#53 TheTerminator

TheTerminator
  • Coach
  • 2,071 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

So if she isn't responsible for anything and if things go wrong, not to blame, what is the point of employing her?

I'm not saying that she wasn't to blame for anything, I'm saying that she was basically made the scapegoat for the whole tragedy by the media when there were many others at fault - for various reasons and as the result of many overlapping factors. Of course - and as you say, there's always the adage that the person at the top has to accept accountability when an institution under their control fails. The compensation is ridiculously disproportionate, though. However, the process followed by her employers in sacking her was incorrect, and she's as entited to claim as anyone in that position. My point was - however badly put, that she was unfairly and ridculously vilifed beyond belief by the media for failings that were probably pretty much beyond her control on a frontline level and as a non hands-on head of department. However much of a poor administrator she was, she didn't directly cause overworked Social Workers to miss chances to save Peter Connelly. Neither did she inflict the horrific injuries that killed him.

Edited by TheTerminator, 29 October 2013 - 07:41 PM.

Posted Image


#54 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,544 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:04 PM

She isn't being made a scapegoat, she isn't just some random employee. She was the head.

#55 TheTerminator

TheTerminator
  • Coach
  • 2,071 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:24 PM

She isn't being made a scapegoat, she isn't just some random employee. She was the head.

As I said, she was the head of department and had to accept a large proportion of the accountability. However, other external professionals were equally as accountable - such as the GP who bafflingly missed serious physical injuries to Peter, who were comparatively ignored by the media. I bet you couldn't name her the aforementioned GP without resorting to a quick google, but Shoesmith's name is utterly synonymous with the case. To that end, she was undoubtedly scapegoated by the media.

Edited by TheTerminator, 29 October 2013 - 11:13 PM.

Posted Image


#56 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,819 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:28 PM

As I said, she was the head of department and had to accept a large proportion of the accountability. However, there were other external professionals who were equally as accountable - such as the GP who bafflingly missed serious physical injuries to Peter, who were comparatively ignored by the media. I bet you couldn't name her the aforementioned GP without resorting to a quick google, but Shoesmith's name is completely synonymous with the case. To that end, she was scapegoated by the media.

 

Let's not forget the registrar with whom the birth was registered.  Clearly something wasn't right when a baby was named Peter in this day and age.  They may as well have gone the whole hog and called him Gary.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#57 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,819 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:28 AM

I wonder how much indignation there is in today's gutter press about Ms Shoesmith, on the same day of course that the press are in the high court arguing against the signing of the royal press charter on a procedural point.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users