Sharon Shoesmith is for me a person to be greatly admired.
She scraped herself off the public pavement and has fought back against the odds.
She was made a scapegoat for the inadequacies of the governments support of the social services.
She had Ed Balls making an example of her without examining his responsibility in what happened.
The media rose up against her because it made a good story and whipped up ill informed criticism of her department. This was at a time when the problem really was that the social services were ill equipped to deal with the problems they faced in Harrigey society.
In the BBC report we hear that the court heard Ms Shoesmith had not been able to find work since she was sacked, had experienced suicidal thoughts and continued to be vilified by the press.
"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies," she added.
Ms Shoesmith said she had received death threats in the wake of the Baby Peter case that had "terrified" her.
"The police were advising me that I was probably at risk," she said. "And when people begin to take photographs of you on the trains and on the buses and point you out and start to shout, 'That's that woman,' you're fearful of where that can go."
The guardian reports :
The furore had broken three weeks previously after Peter's killers were convicted, and Shoesmith found herself at the centre of media attention. She had anticipated a "steadying hand" from Balls and his officials.
Even after he ordered an Ofsted report on Haringey's safeguarding services, she had no inkling that she was to be sacked and offered up as what the appeal court judges called a "public sacrifice".
Then came Balls's infamous press conference, in which he held up the Ofsted report and announced he had used special powers to remove her.
She did not believe something as outrageous as being sacked on live TV could happen. "I was shocked. I probably didn't move out of the chair for three days. I was utterly stunned at what on earth had gone on. When I read the [Ofsted] report I questioned the evidence and I question it to this day."
Now Cameron shows his true colours by questioning the courts decision backed by the Daily Mail in a typical tabloid article that demonstrates just what Sharon Shoesmith is up against
We should not stand by and allow politicians and the press to do this to an individual that has the best interests of others at heart. She should be truly vindicated.
Again I put my trust in the legal system in the form of the High Court to defend her and make her opponents think twice in future about their totally irresponsible action against an individual.
This is the old lynch mob syndrome rearing its pubic head in a very worrying way:
Lynch a victim and flout all thoughts of the actual facts and belief in justice.
I trust Cameron and those like him get their comeuppance
9 comments:
I strongly disagree with you Geoff. This woman presided over a huge dept. on a salary of £133,000 ,that doesn't sound like a lack of support from govt. Ultimately she was responsible for that baby's death but ,unlike 2 of her subordinates ,she did not accept any blame and resign. She waited to be sacked and stands to get £1m in compensation. She will be unemployable but with £1m in the bank ,who cares .....and she still gets a big pension. The baby was visited 60 times but not taken into care. The level of concern that led to all those visits should have been spotted by management and ultimately by Shoesmith. It's called accountability. And you say you admire her ?
Sharon Shoesmith has not been exonerated, she has essentially won her appeal against dismissal on a legal technicality. It is the process of her sacking which was found to be incorrect; the judicial review upheld OFSTED's findings that Haringey Council's childrens services, which allowed the death of Peter Connelly and was overseen by Shoesmith, were inadequate.
So although Sharon Shoesmith would like you to believe it to be the case, she has not been vindicated in the least - if you can find any judgement vindicating her actions, or lack thereof, as Head of Chidrens' Services then please point me to it.
She was dismissed unlawfully and that is all; her actions are not made admirable because of procedural unfairness in removing her from her position. Had lawful procedures been followed the outcome would have certainly been the same, it would just have taken longer.
The "actual facts" as you put it are in the OFSTED report that Shoesmith has tried and failed to have overturned, and which damn the department for which Shoesmith was ultimately responsible.
Complain about lynch mobs and scapegoats if you will, but don't make a fool of yourself by saying that Sharon Shoesmith is a person to be admired just because she has been dismissed unlawfully and villified by the media, because her department failed spectacularly to do its job in protecting children who were at risk.
It's difficult not to make a fool of yourself when you're an idiot. AR and BH have precisely, fairly and articulately summed up the facts of the matter. If the woman had a shred of decency she would have resigned when the Council leader and portfolio holder for children's services in Haringey did when the court's verdict was delivered. The only one playing politics with this is you.
Dan.
So a person's right to defend themselves before being found guilty is a technicality is it?
Thankfully, we live in Britain and have a legal system we can respect - which is more than can be said for most of our politicians and the tabloid press.
Read the Daily Mail report above and notice just how distorted their reporting really is.
Should Cameron follow up his challenge on the judicial system by taking this to the High Court, he's in for a shock.
But then, I bet anyone a hundred pounds that he won't - he's just mouthing a lot of rhetoric so as to appear to support an 'outraged' public.
People who support the tabloid press (buy their papers) need to spend a day in the life of a social worker in Barrow these days to find out what the job is really like.
The public might then be a little more appreciative and respectful of the work they attempt to do when miracles are expected of them.
Yes as AR knows suspension first, then establish the facts.
Then review the evidence.
THEN SACK HER.
Edd Balls made a complete Balls of it.
I agree with you Geoff.
The person paying that kind of salary should be investigated
What we've got here is:
Trial by Media and Politicians.
A fate worse than death.
Anyone able to stand up to this deserves our full support.
If executives are expected to stand up to this barrage then we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
They can argue that they need to paid these high salaries in order to survive.
What we need to promote is fairness, so that people want to do the job - which has an accompanying low salary.
This must rank as one of your more digraceful ego bloating blogs. Are there no depths to which yoy will not ink to promote yourself as "Ethically correct"??
Not one mention of that poor little mite, tortured and killed by its (parents)??..and failed utterly by the system presided over by Shoesmith. She killed that baby by default...proven fact! Her rightful sacking, technically at fault, and now she's won the lottery (Fairness???)...talk to Baby P about fairness, but, of course, you can't!!
News of the World reader - or is it the Sun?
You are fair Geoff you proved that by publishing a personal attack on yourself.
"Veritas Odium Parit"
Post a Comment