http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... sal_Appeal
Another triumph for law over justice and common sense IMO!
Roy.
Another triumph for law over justice and common sense IMO!
Roy.
Shoesmith
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
RogerS
Established Member
When I read that initially I thought you were sticking up for her! Bloody Ed Balls...if only he had done things properly in the first place.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I'm glad she is being given fairer treatment. No point in making her a scapegoat. Balls (and everybody else) was too quick to respond to press hysteria. I've never understood the scapegoat thing; serves no purpose and doesn't remedy anything.
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":2hh1530v said:
Absolutely, Jacob. Just like the 'fairer treatment' that she gave Baby P. Too busy box-ticking (you remember, good old Labour's anal fixation with illusory targets) and swanning off on freebies rather than actually do her job.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It was the parents & friends wot did it. Easy to forget.RogerS":40w17w2t said:
Responsibility of social services is a bit more diverse than this one scapegoat. Blame labour govt too, why not?
Primitive scapegoating satisfies yer primitive Daily Mail readers but does nothing to solve problems or prevent future events of the same sort.
Peter T
Established Member
Jacob":i0a19ep9 said:
Thus spake the guardianista!!
You overlook one point Jacob, if it wasn't for the parents etc there would be no requirement for people like Shoesmith! Having parents such as P had in no way absolves Shoesmith from her responsibilities.
Please note than any award has nothing to do with any lack of culpability, only the manner of her dismissal!
Roy.
Please note than any award has nothing to do with any lack of culpability, only the manner of her dismissal!
Roy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
If we want the Shoesmiths of the world to do these god-awful jobs with these desperate people we shouldn't scapegoat them when it goes wrong. It's too easy and doesn't solve anything.Digit":1n3vo99t said:
Would that not depend on whether or not they failed to do the job correctly?
As I pointed out, this court decision has nothing to do with her performance, for which she has been judged after investigation, along with her staff, ok?
Roy.
Two days ago I asked my wife, 'how long will it be before someone says, "you can't imprison me it would breach my right to family life," well, it's finally happened!
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 001213.jpg
Another victory for law over justice! Well done the legal eagles.
Roy.
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 001213.jpg
Another victory for law over justice! Well done the legal eagles.
Roy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Haringay was failing (Climbie 2000) before Shoesmith was in even there. The problems were institutional - a scapegoat not the solution.Digit":2jh81m5y said:
It's simplistic to pretend that it is all the fault of one person - the scapegoat, and it conveniently lets others off the hook. Ed Balls today was only concerned about covering his back.
So Shoesmith proved incapable of correcting the situation, therefore she failed! Baby P paid the price for her incompetance and now she wants compensation!
To argue Climbie's death as a let off for Shoesmith looks like an argument based on desperation to me Jacob, surely you can do better than that?
And BTW Jacob, we all know how PC you are but it's HaringEy. :lol:
Roy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
There is crime all over the place everyday but we don't call that failure or incompetence of the police. Maybe we should? Should a chief inspector be sacked everytime there is a murder?Digit":1xencs6l said:
Climbie's death shows that the issue is older (or bigger, deeper) than Shoesmith. Scapegoating ignores the real issues and achieves nothing.
That makes the third or fourth time you said that but it offers nothing. She failed to get on top of the problems, do you seriously suggest that she should have been allowed to continue in her job, after all her subordinates got the rocket, was that wrong also?
Do you not see failure in the job as a reason for dismisal? Should Fred the shred have kept his job despite his dismal failure. The Labour party got rid of Brown 'cos he failed, why is Shoesmith supposed to be above dismisal?
In the Gruniard she claims, predictably, that money isn't the point, justice is. She will be giving the money to a children's charity no doubt!
The investigation into the death of baby Peter stated that there were institutional failures at all levels, if correction of such defects is not the job of the top banana then what is Jacob?
Previous failures by Haringey SS is not a defense!
Roy.
RogerS
Established Member
Roy, you're missing the point. In jacob's La-La Labour Land, no-one should ever be castigated for failure. Think about all those PC-correct schools who banned school games 'because it would be unfair to those who didn't come first'.
EDIT: Shoesmith was NOT a scapegoat. Her position was specifically created at Haringay post-Climbie in order to sort out their children's services department. Shoesmith was recruited into that position. She failed. Therefore she can not in any way be described as a scapegoat. To try and argue any other way is to say that water flows uphill...which, of course, Jacob will argue that it does !
EDIT: Shoesmith was NOT a scapegoat. Her position was specifically created at Haringay post-Climbie in order to sort out their children's services department. Shoesmith was recruited into that position. She failed. Therefore she can not in any way be described as a scapegoat. To try and argue any other way is to say that water flows uphill...which, of course, Jacob will argue that it does !
I understand about Jacob Rog but he's an itch I have to scratch! (hammer)
And of course with our looney lefties it's all about lovely Sharon, not a mention of Peter!
At least me failures never buried anyone!
Roy.
And of course with our looney lefties it's all about lovely Sharon, not a mention of Peter!
At least me failures never buried anyone!
Roy.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
You just need to read around the subject in an open minded way, instead of accepting the loony right hysteria, hook line and sinker.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/t ... 639697.stm
It's well understood that scapegoating is an expression of people's anger and horror about issues like this, but it isn't necessarily the most useful way forwards.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/t ... 639697.stm
It's well understood that scapegoating is an expression of people's anger and horror about issues like this, but it isn't necessarily the most useful way forwards.
Walter Hall
Established Member
Sadly, the court case was not about whether Sharon Shoesmith was incompetent or not, it was fundamentally about whether Balls and Haringey Council followed their own procedures and the law of the land in the method of her dismissal.
That they patently failed to do so is the reason that Shoesmith has won her case. In their haste to apportion blame they forgot to play by their own politically correct rules and regulations.
As to whether Shoesmith, or anyone else for that matter, was in fact incompetent and should have been dismissed, the evidence is there for all to see.
That they patently failed to do so is the reason that Shoesmith has won her case. In their haste to apportion blame they forgot to play by their own politically correct rules and regulations.
As to whether Shoesmith, or anyone else for that matter, was in fact incompetent and should have been dismissed, the evidence is there for all to see.
thomvic
Established Member
The Court of Appeal did not say that Shoesmith should not have been sacked and did not, so far as I am aware judge the quality of her work. It simply ruled that her sacking was unfairly carried out. i.e. it was not done in a way prescribed by emplyment law.
I agree with most of you that she, as the head of the department concerned, should have been sacked. However, there is a proper procedure to follow when sacking someone and an announcement at a public meeting is clearly not proper.
You can sack anyone provided that you have a reasonable reason and follow correct procedures and this will cost you nothing. You can also sack anyone without following the procedures (as Balls did) - you just have to pay the price! As Balls (I mean the taxpayers) will.
Richard
I agree with most of you that she, as the head of the department concerned, should have been sacked. However, there is a proper procedure to follow when sacking someone and an announcement at a public meeting is clearly not proper.
You can sack anyone provided that you have a reasonable reason and follow correct procedures and this will cost you nothing. You can also sack anyone without following the procedures (as Balls did) - you just have to pay the price! As Balls (I mean the taxpayers) will.
Richard
You remind me of Smudger, he once argued that 10 million supporters of the death penalty were all wrong and that he was right, the only one in step!
As regards your persistance with 'scapegoating' that is what chief execs are there for, if the football team bombs 'sthe manager that goes, the pay packet demonstrates that, at least in the real world.
Wake up Jacob! If one dead baby doesn't equal failure how many does it take?
Roy.
As regards your persistance with 'scapegoating' that is what chief execs are there for, if the football team bombs 'sthe manager that goes, the pay packet demonstrates that, at least in the real world.
Wake up Jacob! If one dead baby doesn't equal failure how many does it take?
Roy.
