Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Johnoco

Sharon Shoesmith

57 posts in this topic

What a vile piece of trash.

 

What a very well-off vile piece of trash.

 

10...9...8...7...6...5...................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£11,000 a month? bloody hell she's not exactly in penury is she?

 

Still, brass neckedness and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Balls really made a mess of this.  She was a senior manager and her ability to earn has been irreparably damaged by his actions.

 

You can't simply sack somebody in public without following due process.

 

That's the issue at the core here, not whether or not she was or wasn't at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although she does deserve some blame, she was made the scapegoat for an entire system's failure and had the full weight of the government's spin machine against her.  The level of negligence she showed was not that far from the level of negligence shown by government ministers cutting the budget to these functions all over the UK.  It was also not that far from the level of negligence shown by the local council in failing to ensure there was an adequate level of supervision and care in the system, much the same "charge" that saw her summarily dismissed.  Shoesmith was a very convenient middle manager sacked to cover for failings further up the food chain, unfortunately for those in charge she refused to just accept it and go away.

 

She was made to pay with her career yet Ed Balls is still getting his Shadow Minister pay and so are her managers in both the council and social services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened on her watch should have her hanging her head in shame and have her rueing her poor management forever. Not arguing about technicalities. She will know more than anyone what taking this money out of the system could do to social services.

As for her earnings, she clearly wasn't up to the job and was in effect taking money under false pretences.

CKN, so you are making out she is some kind of heroine? FFS, someone earning £11K a month should EXPECT to carry the can, regardless of who is above them. ...that is just a cop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I didn't manage to finish my countdown......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Balls really made a mess of this.  She was a senior manager and her ability to earn has been irreparably damaged by his actions.

 

You can't simply sack somebody in public without following due process.

 

That's the issue at the core here, not whether or not she was or wasn't at fault.

 

That is  true, but underlying all this is the liberal attitude towards those who social services care for, their "clients". Parents who are simply not up to the task, drug addicts who spend their rent money an a fix and then go to social services to stop their landlord evicting them are met with sympathy and concern instead of tough love.

 

I've sat in meetings with a friend of mine where he explains to social services why he is evicting one of their drug-addled clients "but I'm trying" they whine whereupon social worker leans over, pats them on the shoulder and says "well done you!" Where the answer should be "you're not trying bloody hard enough!!"

 

Likewise the not removing these poor kids from their abusive backgrounds in case it traumatises the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened on her watch should have her hanging her head in shame and have her rueing her poor management forever. Not arguing about technicalities. She will know more than anyone what taking this money out of the system could do to social services.

As for her earnings, she clearly wasn't up to the job and was in effect taking money under false pretences.

CKN, so you are making out she is some kind of heroine? FFS, someone earning £11K a month should EXPECT to carry the can, regardless of who is above them. ...that is just a cop out.

 

It's not a technicality to challenge against unfair dismissal, as you should well know yourself (how's that coming on by the way?).

 

What she earned per month is irrelevant be it £1100 or £11000.  Whether she was up to the job or not is open for discussion, OR should have been challenged through disciplinary procedures.

 

She's not a heroine, who knows what she is?  We never got to find out because Ed Balls didn't think to follow a process that is designed to protect employees and employers alike.

 

Gove is said to be furious that there's a confidentially clause attached to her settlement, he's a bloody moron and seems to take pleasure in demonstrating it as if he sees it as a personal challenge to out moron Balls.  Why should any individual have the details of their pay/t&cs in the public domain unless they choose to or they are on a standard grade which is commonly understood or negotiated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened on her watch should have her hanging her head in shame and have her rueing her poor management forever. Not arguing about technicalities. She will know more than anyone what taking this money out of the system could do to social services.

As for her earnings, she clearly wasn't up to the job and was in effect taking money under false pretences.

CKN, so you are making out she is some kind of heroine? FFS, someone earning £11K a month should EXPECT to carry the can, regardless of who is above them. ...that is just a cop out.

How did you get that I said she was the good guy in this?  She should carry her PROPORTIONAL share of the blame instead of being the convenient sole scapegoat.

 

Here's a scenario similar to how I see it:  Imagine you were a bus driver, your employer gave you a rusting death-trap of a bus to drive around, you did it and one day careered out of control killing people, would it be right that only you get the blame for the consequences?

 

The social services system is a death-trap for many vulnerable people due to how it is funded, run and managed at the very highest levels, both at ministerial and senior management levels.  Just because you earn £130k does not make you anywhere near the head of that death-trap pyramid of mismanagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what she earned is relevant to this. She wasn't the office tea girl on NMW who is being made a scapegoat, it is someone in a specific role which they have put themselves forward for, accepted the big wages on offer and MUST live or die by their results.

That there are other people higher up does not mean she should not face the music and admit she was incompetent. I have seen people sacked on the spot for offences like smoking or printing a job wrong. If this happens to you, you generally are out the door with sweet FA. Why should she be any different? She should be grateful that she got away with it for as long as she did, never mind whinging about her future employment. Utter ####.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what she earned is relevant to this. She wasn't the office tea girl on NMW who is being made a scapegoat, it is someone in a specific role which they have put themselves forward for, accepted the big wages on offer and MUST live or die by their results.

That there are other people higher up does not mean she should not face the music and admit she was incompetent. I have seen people sacked on the spot for offences like smoking or printing a job wrong. If this happens to you, you generally are out the door with sweet FA. Why should she be any different? She should be grateful that she got away with it for as long as she did, never mind whinging about her future employment. Utter ####.

Employment laws are there for a reason.  If she were negligent enough that she deserved dismissal then it's up to her bosses to PROVE this rather than just sack her and rely on the court of the national media to be judge, jury and executioner based on what the government spin machine saw fit to leak about her.

 

I used to be the head of our council's HR Committee, I know the process, the process of sacking someone who really deserves to be sacked is quite lengthy and time consuming but done properly it can get rid of someone while providing a complete legal defence against claims of unfair dismissal.

 

Also, again, based on the limited genuine material released, I think she probably did deserve to lose her job but then so did everyone else in the chain of affairs who had a similar level of negligence.  This goes all the way from individual social workers and policemen through to Ed Balls himself.  Again, earning £132k probably put her at mid-senior level on the chain, why was she singled out rather than anyone else in the chain?

 

Also, if she were that senior, would she really have been involved in the detail of the individual case?  Surely this is a job for the social worker and their team leaders/managers?  Did they escalate the case to Shoesmith?  If so, did they escalate it highlighting all the facts of the case?  If so, then that may be the basis for legal dismissal by a properly constituted disciplinary body.  Would an objective third party make the same decisions as her based on the evidence given to her by her staff?  See what I mean?  It's far too easy to join in with the media frenzy of "She's a witch!  Burn her!" rather than impartially look at the evidence and make a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what she earned is relevant to this. She wasn't the office tea girl on NMW who is being made a scapegoat, it is someone in a specific role which they have put themselves forward for, accepted the big wages on offer and MUST live or die by their results.

 

Her earnings are irrelevant as you indeed argue that it is the position itself is what is relevant.

 

Regardless of this, not following due process meant that we will never know whether she should have carried the can or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This swear filter is a bit much. ..that wasn't even a swear word.

 

I've reported it anyway just to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a technicality to challenge against unfair dismissal, as you should well know yourself (how's that coming on by the way?).

 

What she earned per month is irrelevant be it £1100 or £11000.  Whether she was up to the job or not is open for discussion, OR should have been challenged through disciplinary procedures.

 

She's not a heroine, who knows what she is?  We never got to find out because Ed Balls didn't think to follow a process that is designed to protect employees and employers alike.

 

Gove is said to be furious that there's a confidentially clause attached to her settlement, he's a bloody moron and seems to take pleasure in demonstrating it as if he sees it as a personal challenge to out moron Balls.  Why should any individual have the details of their pay/t&cs in the public domain unless they choose to or they are on a standard grade which is commonly understood or negotiated?

 

 

 Why should any individual have the details of their pay/t&cs in the public domain

 

because its my money and I want to see how it is being wasted

 

because something has to be ( seen to be) done about the obscene level of rewards - salary, pensions,  holidays etc that abound at the top of the public sector...rewards that never seem to carry the penalty of poor performance that is the norm in the private sector at this level, whilst the poor bloody infantry get not much more than the minimum wage and have to work until they are 65 or older  before they get their miserable state pension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Baby P died the way he did is not open to debate though.

And as these are supposedly public servants then what they earn etc should be open to scrutiny. I bet the BBC also felt they didn't have to justify executive salaries not long back but they seem to feel different now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Baby P died the way he did is not open to debate though.

And as these are supposedly public servants then what they earn etc should be open to scrutiny. 

 

Public servants is such a misleading term.  They are employed, just like anyone else who is employed, to do a job for a wage that they have agreed with their employer.  There is no distinction in law or ethics as to whether their employer is the state or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Why should any individual have the details of their pay/t&cs in the public domain

 

because its my money and I want to see how it is being wasted

 

because something has to be ( seen to be) done about the obscene level of rewards - salary, pensions,  holidays etc that abound at the top of the public sector...rewards that never seem to carry the penalty of poor performance that is the norm in the private sector at this level, whilst the poor bloody infantry get not much more than the minimum wage and have to work until they are 65 or older  before they get their miserable state pension

 

Again, the terms and conditions are a matter for the individual and their employer.  Whether that is the state or not is broadly irrelevant.  If you have an issue with the terms and conditions that state employees get, then lobby against it by all means.  I draw no distinction between the infantry, who sign up for their terms and conditions like any other employed person, and Ms Shoesmith.  Both have contracts of employment which by definition have been agreed.

 

£11k per month for a senior management position would not be unusual in other professions, state owned banks for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Baby P died the way he did is not open to debate though.

 

And Shoesmith didn't kill him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.

 

I see plenty of people getting huge salaries for no reason, and with little risk, in all sectors.

 

I also see plenty of people outraged when children are removed from even the most troubled families.

 

There were, no doubt, mistakes.  Obviously there were.  But no 'overpaid public sector fatcat' killed Baby P.  Not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, but that is not why she was  dismissed. The balance between reward and risk at "director" level in the public sector is totally wrong and out of line with that in the private sector, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Private Eye  can read about every fortnight. If Shoesmith were to try, I'm sure she could join the highly rewarding senior public sector employment merry-go-round, or at least she'll now become a highly rewarded public sector consultant who will borrow your watch to tell you the time.

The word "director" when referring to a public sector employee is a con and can't be relied upon.  It's a sop to them to get them to take a middle-manager's job with a fancy title.  Much like many US companies have really quite junior managers called "vice president" to get them to take on more for lower pay.  I know one Parish Council Clerk who has a job title of Council Services Director when she has no employees under her and works from her spare bedroom when not in council meetings, she took the enhanced job title in lieu of complaining about not getting a pay rise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017