Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

Bruce Banner

Balls Balls-Up

Recommended Posts

Court rules that his public sacking of Sharon Shoesmith was illegal.

I read this as a judgement on the process adopted when sacking her; it doesn't comment on the justice of sacking her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does, in the sense that the Ofsted appeal was chucked out, essentially agreeing that she was a shitter.

Ofsted are the main guilty party.Balls reacted incorrectly under public pressure.This all shows how undesirable it is to let the gutter press run the agenda.She will walk away with a couple of million.We have the same thing in Suffolk with the County Council Chief exec being scapegoated by the council leader.She will need a wheelbarrow for the money.It's a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Labour look bad over this is hilarious.

They have promoted the rights of workers for decades. The right to a fair hearing and the long protracted procedure required by many employers to sack the incompetent is mostly their doing.

But when they need to be seen to be 'doing something,' a knee-jerk sacking without following 'procedure' bites them back. The present Education Dept will of course appeal, if only because she will be awarded a lot of money without challenge otherwise.

Shoesmith has already admitted she wouldn't have lasted long but by quickly trying to win a few poll points, Balls was wrong. Idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court rules that his public sacking of Sharon Shoesmith was illegal.

If Ms Shoesmith was vilified over the death of baby P, I can't help wondering how much more she's going to be vilified for getting what could be a £1M payoff.

The Mail must be licking its lips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard her interviewed on't wireless this morning. She actually sounded very sensible and reasonable, under pressure from the interviewer. Of course she was scapegoated, but we knew that. We'll (now) never know the truth - whether giving her the boot was fair or reasonable. What we do know is that the way it happened was neither. She accepted responsibility (and didn't point out that Balls himself was 'responsible' in a similar manner as top dog).

This kind of situation is precisely where due process matters. Just changing the boss without questioning the system - and its impossible objectives ("never again" just won't happen so long as there are families) - solves nothing. It's not like the simple case of an employee caught with hand in till, where summary dismissal makes perfect sense.

She also said in the interview that it wasn't about the compensation. Wonder if she'll follow that up by winning big money and making a big charitable donation of it?

Most puzzling bit is that the present government is taking an interest. Why shouldn't they just stay well clear of this mess and leave it as Balls vs the Courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone noticed some power play going on between the judiciary system and the governments? ;)

edit: what with the injunctions and now this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Labour look bad over this is hilarious.

They have promoted the rights of workers for decades. The right to a fair hearing and the long protracted procedure required by many employers to sack the incompetent is mostly their doing.

But when they need to be seen to be 'doing something,' a knee-jerk sacking without following 'procedure' bites them back. The present Education Dept will of course appeal, if only because she will be awarded a lot of money without challenge otherwise.

Shoesmith has already admitted she wouldn't have lasted long but by quickly trying to win a few poll points, Balls was wrong. Idiot.

Yeah it was labour that introduced the Employment Rights Act 1996 wasn't it? :rolleyes:

How terrible - a right to a fair hearing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ms Shoesmith was vilified over the death of baby P, I can't help wondering how much more she's going to be vilified for getting what could be a £1M payoff.

The Mail must be licking its lips.

Where's the £1 Million coming from? The limit for Unfair dismissal is in the region of £80K. There isn't a case of discrimination here on grounds of sex , race or age so that further limits compensation. If the Court agrees that ultimately she would have been sacked even if the proper procedure was followed her compo will be limited to the time it is estimated that process would have taken - probably no more than 3 months (whats known legally as a Polkey Settlement)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does than mean she'll only be awarded a 1 pound compensation? I so truly hope so.

Reading part of her interview on the beeb today she really has no shame.

I mean, if I'd have headed up an organisation where her staff visited that poor child 50 times, I would have crawled away and not had the audacity to come out in public life again.

One can only hope mother nature reserves a particularly painful end for her.

Social workers are not allowed to touch the children. The mother smoothered the kid in chocolate to disguise any bruises. The Social Workers were relaint on medical reports that said the child was generally ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Shoesmith in the wrong? Possibly, although unless you have massive State intrusion into everyone's lives tragedies like this will happen.

Was Balls wrong? Most certainly, an illegal knee jerk reaction to score political points, stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on are you seriously suggesting that every time you went to the home and the child had er chocolate smeared in varying places, this wouldn't be just a tiny bit suspicious? :unsure:

Kurt are you not trying to defend the indefensible here? <_<

The social worker had to make 40 plus field visits a week due to the volume of work imposed on the dept. Shoesmith had to work with a fixed budget at best. Social work is so vilified as a profession many local authorities have to recruit in the USA offering £50K plus. This included Harringay.

There is far more to this than you what you might read in the Daily Mail. Shoesmith is not without fault but this would have happened with anyone else put in her position in the same set of circumstances.

As Bruce says without massive state intrusion trajedies like this will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social workers are not allowed to touch the children. The mother smoothered the kid in chocolate to disguise any bruises. The Social Workers were relaint on medical reports that said the child was generally ok.

HONESTLY......WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FEKKIN COFFEE!

BABY P is a planted news story,with an exoteric AND ESOTERIC interpretation....look at the photo.

there's more going on.

http://kathleen-songbird.webs.com/baby-p_1459672i.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Bruce says without massive state intrusion trajedies like this will happen.

I wasn't suggesting that massive State intrusion into our everyday lives is acceptable.

Some crime, however dreadful, must be accepted as inevitable. The only alternative would be total surrender of our freedom to lead our own private lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on the radio that more than 1 kid a week dies at the hands of their carers or parents in the UK.

It was let go without comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Shoesmith in the wrong? Possibly, although unless you have massive State intrusion into everyone's lives tragedies like this will happen.

Exactly. We'll never know now, unless some future historian does some serious study. Any report purporting to tell us one way or the other will have a hard job convincing the world of its objectivity, even if it is in fact totally honest and objective.

Was Balls wrong? Most certainly, an illegal knee jerk reaction to score political points, stupid.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting that massive State intrusion into our everyday lives is acceptable.

Some crime, however dreadful, must be accepted as inevitable. The only alternative would be total surrender of our freedom to lead our own private lives.

Sorry Bruce - I wasn't suggesting you were. I understood your point :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they really advertising £50k jobs in USA to work in Harringey and lots of other local authorities? This twice the national wage.

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/council_gov_democracy/news/33389.asp

And this is leafy Hereford. Can you imagine how easy it is to recruit Social Workers in inner London?

http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=35660

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I think you've dodged the question there.

I feel my point about Shoe Smith still stands, a horrible unrepentant woman who has no shame.

My original point was that irrespective of blame she was entitled to a fair hearing not a public tar and feathering session by Balls up.

I have read plenty of articles where she is remorseful of what happened. In addition a relative of mine knows Sharon Shoesmith and has repeatedly stated her anguish over this. In addition she was offered a large six figure pay off (with attached confidentiality clause) at the outset to accept all blame. She refused wishing that the details of this case were publicised in order to air the general problems with child welfare in the Uk, especially in inner city areas.

A final point is she is not a Social Worker. She is a teacher who had her department merged with Social Services and told to run that too. This may emphasis some of the problem in these situations where significant parts of local government are merged under one strategic head who will not be qualified in both areas.

The turnover of Directors of Social Services in the Uk is about 18 months to 2 years. If they had to automatically resign everytime a vulnerable person died then the turnover would be about 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'On 1 August 2007, Baby Peter was seen at St. Ann's Hospital in north London by locum paediatrician Dr. Sabah Al-Zayyat.[13] A post-mortem examination later revealed a broken back and ribs, among a number of other injuries, that are believed to have pre-dated Al-Zayyat's examination'.

If you want someone to blame I would suggest the above. As I said before Social Workers are not allowed to examine children and are reliant on medical reports from medical professionals. That medical professional told Social Services - the kids fine.

Not exactly what you need when going before the beak to get a custody / protection order <_<

Edit

In June 2007, a social worker observed marks on Peter and informed the police. A medical examination concluded that the bruising was due to abuse. On 4 June, the baby was placed with a friend for safeguarding. Over a month later, on 25 July, Haringey Council's Children & Young People's Service obtained legal advice which indicated that the "threshold for initiating Care Proceedings...was not met".[12]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thank you for that, however, if one is put in a position of power over a department (whether she is a Social worker or not), it is a managerial fact that if you take the responsibility for that position then you take the blame and conversely the applause and the money for turning things around / results.*

If that had been me in her initial position, I would (1) either realised (I hope), that the system needed changing or (2) would have put in my own internal task force to go through procedures as to where things can be improved / had a look at those below in the front line and seen who was up to snuff and who wasn't.

*This isn't beyond the bounds of human intellect and vision to put in safe guards (and one doesn't need an MBA to do this), or flag up families early, 40 visits is enough I feel. <_<

My managerial points above are valid no matter how poor the system of governmental care via social workers for the vulnerable is.

I suspect Sharon Shoesmith can point to a tome of reports outlining the mismatch between resources and demands on the service, recruitment being one of them given that Social Work is such a vilified profession.

The number of visits is irrelvant. 40 visits, 400, 4000 visits. Without any substantive evidence you will not get a care order. Social Workers only have some limited emergency powers which they have to have evidence to use or would likely face dismissal. Clearly the Social Workers professional judgement told them something was wrong hence the number of visits. But if no evidence is forthcoming what do you present to the Magistrate - a hunch?

Out of interest have you ever worked in a Regulatory capacity where all the burden of proof is upon you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the members, and CEO responsibility ? (other than the other poster said continually turning over the lower management)

This is only going to get worse under this kind of corporate governance. Eventually the people in post will all be contractors on short term contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect Sharon Shoesmith can point to a tome of reports outlining the mismatch between resources and demands on the service, recruitment being one of them given that Social Work is such a vilified profession.

The number of visits is irrelvant. 40 visits, 400, 4000 visits. Without any substantive evidence you will not get a care order. Social Workers only have some limited emergency powers which they have to have evidence to use or would likely face dismissal. Clearly the Social Workers professional judgement told them something was wrong hence the number of visits. But if no evidence is forthcoming what do you present to the Magistrate - a hunch?

Out of interest have you ever worked in a Regulatory capacity where all the burden of proof is upon you?

Here's an exercise for the Armchair hindsight Brigade

You are a Social Worker. You get some complaints regarding mistreatment of a child. You suspect mistreatment is going on so investigate it. However this is in the context of having about 100 other cases to deal with at the same time.

There is no medical evidence that would suggest substansive abuse. Indeed legal opinion is sought and you are advised that the evidential test is not met.

There is no police record.

Whilst you have complaints (neighbours / friends) no one will actually give a witness statement.

Whilst the kid is a bit dozy / scruffy he seems reasonably happy.

You are not allowed to examine the child yourself.

Task - summarise the key evidence you will present in your application for a care order to the Magistrates / Judge to take child away from his parents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the members, and CEO responsibility ? (other than the other poster said continually turning over the lower management)

This is only going to get worse under this kind of corporate governance. Eventually the people in post will all be contractors on short term contracts.

Yep - nail on head

I used to be a Local Authority Environmental Health Officer which has parallels with Social work. More and more goes to contractors who couldn't give a fook - Food Hygiene Inspections, Health and Safety, Licensing you name it. Quality of work is appalling but its all a numbers game now - no interest in protecting public safety and by the time things go wrong the contractor spiv has long gone <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.