Archived

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

Johnoco

Sharon Shoesmith

57 posts in this topic

And Shoesmith didn't kill him.

I never said she did. I am talking about her job and her brass neck for claiming compensation.

If I was negligent in my job and it led to the death of a fellow worker I would be so sick that my precious career would be the last thing I cared about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 But no 'overpaid public sector fatcat' killed Baby P.  Not one.

 

At the risk of repeating myself: true.

At the risk of repeating myself: that is not why she was dismissed

At the risk of repeating myself. She was an overpaid, over rewarded senior public sector fat cat  who wanst to trouser my money  yet remain unaccountable and protected from the consequences of her poor performance.

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.

 

Exactly. Clearly she wasn't guilty of gross misconduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said she did. I am talking about her job and her brass neck for claiming compensation.

If I was negligent in my job and it led to the death of a fellow worker I would be so sick that my precious career would be the last thing I cared about.

 

She was dismissed unfairly, and she has every right to take action.  It's not brass neck, it's looking out for herself and her family given that's she's now been effectively labelled as toxic and is at significant risk of not having the same earning capacity again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should she she have the same earning capacity. She failed.  Still, give her  a few months and she'l be back on the gravy train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that should be remembered is that Sharon Shoesmith  was made Head of Children's  Services when she had never been a social worker. She had been a successful teacher and headteacher but got the social-responsibility post via an internal reorganisation programme at Haringey Council.

 

In those circumstances: -

 - perhaps it was no wonder that she didn't realise the full societal  risks faced by children like Baby P

 - perhaps she was not kept adequately informed of developments and fully supported by longstanding members of a Dept that she had been parachuted into. Maybe there was a degree of resentment.

 - perhaps she was a convenient scapegoat, compared to lower-profile, and unionised, social workers.

 

I don't know whether any of those factors are applicable but, let's face it, she's won her case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was dismissed unfairly, and she has every right to take action. It's not brass neck, it's looking out for herself and her family given that's she's now been effectively labelled as toxic and is at significant risk of not having the same earning capacity again.

It's brass neck. Why should she be entitled to earn big money when she clearly is incompetent? Can I have a job like that? I don't know what I am doing but hey, you try and sack me.. Let's not forget she wasn't overseeing the dustbin collection and some were missed. She was responsible and the buck stops with her...otherwise what is the point of paying such people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether any of those factors are applicable but, let's face it, she's won her case.

As the law stands I'd have been surprised if she had to say anything at all during the court hearing.  It'd have been a very short hearing indeed.

 

Judge to council HR people:  Show me one bit of evidence that you followed the minimum legal standards for dismissing her.

Council HR people:  Well... that nice Mr Balls said it was OK.

Judge:  So, no evidence at all?

Council HR people:  Erm... no.

Judge:  Judgement for the plaintiff.

 

The law is fairly blunt when it comes to minimum standards and repercussions if you, as an employer, fail to follow them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should she she have the same earning capacity. She failed. Still, give her a few months and she'l be back on the gravy train.

Exactly.

I am currently looking for a job and whatever it is I end up with, chances are it will be considerably lower than my previous job. That's tough, that's life - why on earth should bunglers like her be immune from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy peasy; her contact of employment should have had a performance clause in ,it, a gross misconduct clause etc. Easy peasy ..instant dismissal with no notice and no payment in lieu. 

 

Why not? It happens to the poor bloody infantry. These people are more interested in feathering their own nest at the expense of the poverty-stricken minimum-wage earners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy peasy; her contact of employment should have had a performance clause in ,it, a gross misconduct clause etc. Easy peasy ..instant dismissal with no notice and no payment in lieu. 

 

Why not? It happens to the poor bloody infantry. These people are more interested in feathering their own nest at the expense of the poverty-stricken minimum-wage earners.

I dismissed someone for gross misconduct when I was a councillor.  It took 5 months to do it properly once we'd exhausted all internal processes and appeals.  He left threatening to sue us for everything we had.  Beyond an initial disclosure letter from a "no win, no fee" solicitor that we complied with we heard nothing, our lawyer said it was because the documentation we provided showed there was clearly no case to answer and his solicitor wouldn't have signed off on a clearly loss-making suit.

 

That's all they needed to do against Shoesmith.  Make a case for gross misconduct and prove it.  If they couldn't then that's their problem and maybe questions would have been asked about where the real blame should lie and if it's really with just one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

I am currently looking for a job and whatever it is I end up with, chances are it will be considerably lower than my previous job. That's tough, that's life - why on earth should bunglers like her be immune from it?

 

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the proper process had been followed in dismissing here she wouldn't be entitled to any compensation.  It's the political posturing and kneejerk reactions that are to blame.

 

No, its just one more example of how public sector employment contracts at that level are out of control compared with the real world. The technical phrases are  " they all urinate in the same pot"  and " you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." You need to keep up with Private Eye's rotten boroughs page.

 

The disgusting thing is that she will be back on the gravy train after spending her compo on a nice holiday.....at our expense, natch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they put in a clause, something like, if she somehow miraculously gets another job, and therefore is able to provide for herself, will she have  to give the money back as it clearly wasn't such a barrier to getting work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/news/news-opinion/andrew-jackson-strange-case-lollipop-6189154

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.