In an article dated November 15, 2008 in The Times :
"The headteachers of 61 state-funded primary schools and seven secondary schools in the North London borough say her resignation would be detrimental to their pupils.
In they open letter the say they have been compelled to show their support for Shoesmith and consider her “an outstanding public servant”.
They added: “Should the Child P case result in her loss from the borough, then our children and young people will lose one of their most effective, determined and committed champions.”
“Initially, in her role of director of education, Shoesmith transformed a demoralised education service, derided by many headteachers, into one with which we are now proud to be associated.
“The exceptional rate of improvement of many of the borough’s schools would not have been possible without the support of the service that Ms Shoesmith rebuilt, revitalised and led.
“Since more recently becoming the director of Haringey’s Children and Young People’s Service, Shoesmith has continued to work relentlessly and with a determination that the service she leads and develops ensures best practice in providing education, care, support and protection for all of our young people.”
Let's look dispassionately at the evidence that is emerging :
Here on the 15th September 2010:
Appearing before the education select committee, Shoesmith said
"To construct a narrative so simple – which told the public that Peter Connelly died because Haringey was uniquely weak, sack everyone from the director to the social workers and all would be well – was quite frankly absurd."
She said the case had had a profound impact on children's services. "The whole sector is now motivated by a fear of failure, and not the conditions for success."
The number of children coming into care had increased by 30% and the number subject to a child protection plan had doubled, she said.
But such measures appeared to have had scant impact on the number of children dying at the hands of parents and close relatives. "These are shocking statistics and statistics that are not known," she said. They are absolutely too abhorrent for us to even consider."
And here in the Telegraph 1st April 2010 :
The report into Haringey Council's handling of the Baby P scandal was "beefed up" to help justify the removal of the controversial head of children's services Sharon Shoesmith, her lawyers have claimed.
Previously undisclosed documents reveal how Ofsted inspectors deleted relevant emails and ignored positive aspects of their findings, focusing instead on harsh criticisms of management.
It has also been alleged that changes to the report were made following interference and pressure from the office of Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary.
9 comments:
You aren't looking dispassionately at the evidence at all, because what you have presented in support of your stance would either be considered extremely flimsy evidence or, more likely, allegations which are completely inadmissable as evidence in of themselves.
A testimony (from no less a neutral party than Sharon Shoesmith herself!) and allegations from her legal team are not evidence. If they have any actual evidence for their serious allegations (i.e. what they base their allegations on) - allegations which are far more grave than simply a case of unlawful dismissal - this evidence needs to be tested in a court of law.
Who knows what facts might eventually come out? But until proved otherwise, the inquiry (which has already been challenged in court might I add) should be what we take as the best approximation of fact. Otherwise anyone can say anything.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with your mistrust of politicians and inherent desire to stick up for the "little guy", Geoff, but it's the same logic as applies to convicted criminals who protest their innocence or insist on others' guilt - prove it.
I'm also disappointed that however scant it is, the evidence you present so dispassionately is all cherry-picked in Sharon Shoesmith's favour. More a closed minded attempt to portray a certain version of events than a non-biased presentation of the facts? For someone with a scientific background, such a bias and ready acceptance of mere hearsay is a little alarming.
I don't believe I am coming down on one side or the other.
What I believe is that we don't understand the true position, yet people who wield tremendous influence have made snap judgements and may have wrecked a persons career and life.
There is surely doubt about the commonly held view that she is all bad when so many people put their own careers in jeopardy in order to support her.
Surely 60 Heads of schools are more in touch with the real Sharon Shoesmith than the media etc.
If you're in education you are dealing on a daily basis with parents of troublesome kids and get to know the social services well. I as a former teacher had regular joint meetings with other workers in child protection field.
They gather a big body of evidence of the workings within child care. For this number of heads to write what they did surely must make rational people think twice about the judgements being made.
I suspect that it has been this body of people who know her better than us that has helped her cope with what seems to me to have been a horrendous miscarraige of justice.
Why do you write off the views of the heads as though they are meaningless.
As for the views of Ofsted, I too have witnessed at first hand their actions and verdicts.
You can still read in black and white the report they wrote about me and how I was organising a trip to Greece for my 'deprived' kids something we discussed for about five minutes in the class form period.
What in fact we were discussing was an impending visit to "Grease" the musical in the West End and the necessary travel arrangements.
So they got it wrong and it still went into their report. They were only half awake but then it was 9:00 am
No the views of Ofsted inspectors sometimes need to be taken with a pinch of salt. They are being paid make judgements at a frightening speed which only allows them to skim the surface. This part of the system should also be questioned. The HMI inspectors that preceded them got to know their schools intimately and really knew their stuff. Now we operate on a basis of snap judgements because we are ruled by scant sources of money.
Life has become too complicated for us all to be well informed so errors abound. The media focusses on a very small part of what is happening - the part that will make a good story for their papers.
The result as we know can be a load of sensational rubbish.
When they get it wrong, honest people's lives are ruined.
Sharon Shoesmith should have been allowed to defend herself when dismissed. As far as I can understand the present situation, that is all that is being stated by the judges, not that she was innocent of all guilt in the Baby P case, or other happenings within her substantial domain.
Of course she cannot be personally responsible for every failing of those under her charge but, as in many fields of responsibility the top executive is ultimately the one who shoulders the burden of blame when things go wrong. Their high salaries are commensurate with this responsibility.
The sickening torture of this innocent child that was not picked up by a number of care and medical workers is not just symptomatic of a failing system but also of a general malaise where personal responsibility is no longer the norm. In a sense we are ALL responsible for what happens to the Baby P's of this world. Even so, in such cases as Baby P someone has to accept the failings of the staff concerned and that someone is usually the one at the top. However well that person performed in a previous job has nothing to do with it. Ms Shoesmith was in overall charge. I am NOT speaking up for Ed Balls (I don't even like the man!). He should have allowed Ms Shoesmith her 'day in court' and if a huge compensation is handed out then he is to blame.
What a sane comment, Gladys.
I agree entirely.
Yes Shoesmith has to accept responsibiliy.
However for those that want blood it does not follow that the top executive should automatically resign.
If she is already striving hard to improve a failing system then it could be desirable to encourage her to continue if it is found that this is what was already happening.
What has been achieved by firing her?
Has this achieved a major change or are we still left with a failing system.
With society the way it is with a finite ability and funding of social workers to deal with it, don't we have to accept that there will be major mistakes.
I agree that what has to change is the involvement of all the public in dealing with problems.
In education there are some parents that expect teachers to educate and sort out their kids as though this is what they're paid to do and the parents can ignore the kids.
There are some parents in Ulverston that when the police call at their door with misbehaving kids reply "Take them away - we can't cope with them."
On the contrary it is the parents and the childrens neighbours and social contacts that need to take the responsibility. The teachers are their to assist and provide expertise but not to wave a magic wand.
Where murderers are involved, obviously these are the people that are at fault and the society around them have a strong influence in what happens. Sometimes they need to step in and take action and not expect 'the system' to solve all the problems.
There are too many people around that avoid responsibility and take the viewpoint it's someone elses responsibility.
There are too many people who like to point the finger rather than look in the mirror.
I love this blog.
Your wise comments sum the case up
Gladys.
In order to see clearly, we should stand on the shoulders of our ancestors.
"There are too many people around that avoid responsibility and take the viewpoint it's someone elses responsibility."
Isn't this what Sharon Shoesmith has been doing by refusing to accept any blame whatsoever?
Where have you read that Shoesmith "refuses to accept any blame whatsoever".
Sounds like a "crank up the agro" statement from a tabloid.
For instance the Sun states "The former director of Haringey Children's Services still REFUSED to accept any personal blame for the little boy's death."
This is the way some of the media operate and is totally misleading journalism.
Did she say this? No .
This is the Sun's view of what she said.
Read the report and what you learn is that those asking questions were trying to trap her. They had there own agenda and were trying to get her to match their view.
The only way to get a fair report would be in court with lawyers on both sides trying to establish the truth. This could take several days of questioning and answer and with good lawyers on both sides would get much closer to the truth.
What we get is trial by media and politicians over a few hours and the media cherry picking it's favourite quotes to siut there view. The public then makes its mind up on the basis of a few loaded and inaccurate sentences.
Make it as contraversial as possible and everyone will want to read the story, especially if reminded of lots of gruesome pictures. Try reading a report of the same happening in a paper like the Times, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph and you wouldn't believe they were covering the same event.
This why we have courts with 12 jurers. The result comes far closer to the truth.
It is a real threat to all our freedoms if the press and officials make snap judgements that have serious consequences - we must watch out for it and defend the victims of injustice if our society is to survive.
An eloquent speech but I didn't read it anywhere. I heard Sharon Shoesmith say when asked about it that she "didn't do blame" - which is pretty fair to suggest means she blames neither herself nor anyone else for what happened - before proceeding to blame the secretary of state.
Of course the tabloids have their own agenda; everyone does, including me, including you and most definitely including Sharon Shoesmith. The truth in these cases usually lies somewhere in the middle and while she isn't the devil incarnate, she is not an innocent either. It happened under her watch and her charge and she has to take some responsibility and, like it or not, some blame.
The more I hear about Sharon Shoesmith, the more I like her.
I have not followed this story in the past. What I was convinced of was that we had a witch hunt on her hands.
We also had an honest person that wasn't going to bend to media pressure and make it easy for herself.
Your conclusion that she has to take blame is typical of the tabloid - irration.
If I had worked hard to run a good department; was seen by those that knew me as doing a good job in difficult circumstances.
Then I hope I would have the courage to repeat that I had done the job to the best of my ability and didn't want to talk about blame.
If you are dealing with black and white films, you can't be talking about red or blue or green.
What we, the public need to accept is that everyone is human and particularly when dealing with devious people who resort to murder, we are open to errors of judgement - nothing more - in highly complex situations.
Isn't it strange that the media focus on one individual rather than the problems that exist in our society so that murders and ill treatment are commonplace.We all have a part to play as pointed out by Gladys.
There are too many people who are unwilling to accept responsibility themselves, but are quick to judge others.
It's the same kind of thing with my work in Mill Dam Park.
Few people want to get involved but you can gaurantee that if anything went wrong or is done badly, the rest would want to pile in and criticise.
Attitudes like the negative ones expressed here lead to people refusing to poke their heads above the parapet so that "nobody does nuffin".
Is this the kind of world we want to encourage?
Post a Comment