Sutty
Midfield
at the time of 'Baby P's' death has just been awarded £680,000 for unfair dismissal 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28454800
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28454800
The woman who was in charge of Haringey Childrens services
- Thread starter Sutty
- Start date
- Status
W
weardale mackem
Guest
You can't blame her, it's the system that's fucked
Sutty
Midfield
In the words of Ed Balls: "An independent report said there were disastrous failings in Haringey children's services.
"They said the management was at fault. Sharon Shoesmith was the director of children's services and so of course it leaves a bad taste in the mouth that the person who was leading that department, and responsible, ends up walking away with, it seems, a large amount of money."
He sums it up quite well, imo
As far as I can remember she won on a technicality.
Dougal
Striker
The problem was she was unfairly sacked - it was announced by a 'politician' on TV before any investigation had even been contemplated! The council then sacked her without going through any of their laid down procedures, never mind basic legal requirements in order to avoid embarrassing the politician. That was the technicality!
So, not her but the politician has cost the tax payer £680K plus all the legal fees etc. But when did a politician ever worry about waiting public funds on their vanity?
So, not her but the politician has cost the tax payer £680K plus all the legal fees etc. But when did a politician ever worry about waiting public funds on their vanity?
D
Deleted member 10594
Guest
The compensation package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in the 2011 ruling.
I hope she sleeps well at night anarl
I hope she sleeps well at night anarl
She was unfairly sacked in the eyes of the law. She was also f***ing useless at her job.
Occam's Razor
Striker
People enjoy the rewards that come with positions of great responsibility, but when it comes to actually accepting any real responsibility if things go catastrophically wrong, it never seems to have been anything to do with them.
D
Deleted member 361
Guest
this
The 'technicality' being the law? The law is full of these funny little 'technicalities' that we have to abide by.
D
Deleted member 5265
Guest
She was sacked as a result of pressure from the Labour government in a way that ignored the law that protects every employee in this country. It's easy as piss to sack incompetent people without legal risk. If her employers, under pressure from the government, screwed up those very straight forward procedures, then she's entitled to her money. The law protects all of us. Anger in this case is appropriate but should be directed at the knee-jerking politicians who, to satisfy a populist agenda, rode roughshod over the law.
Typhoonftm
Striker
I'd dread to think how much that is. Bet the sun is filing a freedom of info request as we speak!
Her Ivory Tower
Winger
Employment law applies equally to everyone though right?
Or only those deemed worthy/good at their jobs? Who decides?
tunstall birdman
Striker
Aye the sacking was illegal and so legally it was just to award her compensation but it feels morally wrong that incompetence that played a part in such tragic and horrific circumstances it led to was rewarded with such a large sum of public money.
There are too many bigwigs in public funded organisations leave or get released then receive very large sums of money eg: The BBC.
Her Ivory Tower
Winger
She wasn't awarded damages because she was sacked from her job. She was awarded damages because the way in which she was sacked was unlawful.
Sutty
Midfield
Aye, I get that but it doesn't get away from the fact that if it had been done properly, she'd have still been sacked for being f***ing useless at her job. She's now £680,000 richer and a vulnerable child under her watch is still dead.
Occam's Razor
Striker
I'm not disputing that she was unfairly dismissed, although I'm unsure why she was deemed entitled to such a large sum. My point was a broader one, that people in all sorts of fields who receive huge salaries, in return for bearing great responsibility, are reluctant to take actual responsibility when things go wrong.
Things did go horribly wrong, quite clearly, under Shoesmith's tenure as head of Haringey children's services and she should have resigned; failing that she should have been dismissed. That the actual method of her dismissal turned out to be illegal doesn't change that. The main beneficiary of that error turns out to have been Sharon Shoesmith who is now nearly three-quarters of a million pounds better off because of it. Meanwhile the main losers are presumably the vulnerable children of Haringey who, having been let down once by the body supposedly in place to care for them under Shoesmith's watch, are now suffering commensurately with the diversion of that money plus legal costs away from frontline services.
Unfair hardly seems to cover it.
I worked for many years as a union representative and was sent on countless employment law courses. This was because the unions knew that employers were often ignorant when it came to matters of law. In one meeting I had with the company I worked for, I even had to explain custom and practice law to the director of HR.
The problem with this case is a child died in absolutely horrific circumstances, and the department Shoesmith was in charge of was partly responsible. She deserved to be sacked, and how she can shamelessly take this money shows the type of woman she is, but the people who sacked her incorrectly should also hold their heads in shame.
Her Ivory Tower
Winger
It's a fairly straight forward calculation of basic plus compensatory award for future losses, plus past losses, plus pension and benefit losses.
- Status
