The woman who was in charge of Haringey Childrens services

Status
Not open for further replies.
I trade interest rates for a living. I have no idea about et's other than my tax has paid out for incompetence f***ing everywhere.

If you think due process has awarded Sharon shoesmith fairly for her running of Haringey council then great. The system works.

I think the award stinks.

I totally understand you sticking up for legal process, in fact it's refreshing to get an opinion from the fence. I just happen to think the result and the obfuscation is galling considering a child died in horrific circumstances on her watch. And as occam said, she loves the rewards without responsibility.

I've no issue with you at all.
I've no issue with you either,or OR, and never have.

However not once in this thread, or indeed anywhere on this board, have I ever said that I agree with the decision, the payment, what she did/didn't do, or in fact any other aspect of the case. Clearly you and OR have read this into my posts of your own volition, hence vehemently disagreeing with every post I've made as if, by laying out ET process, I am by proxy wholeheartedly supporting Ms Shoesmith and the Haringay/Parliamentary villains of the piece. Hence yours and his apparent determination to find wrong with everything I write on principle without actually knowing if what I am saying is correct or not. Your post 31 being a perfect example of this.

If you want to know my thoughts on that poor little boy and the abject horror and suffering he endured at the hands of that turgid monster and her savage brute of a boyfriend, or how I felt reading the graphic details of the abuse meted out to him, or what I think of Shoesmith and Haringay just ask. My posts on this thread thus far certainly won't tell you.
 
Last edited:


I've no issue with you either,or OR, and never have.

However not once in this thread, or indeed anywhere on this board, have I ever said that I agree with the decision, the payment, what she did/didn't do, or in fact any other aspect of the case. Clearly you and OR have read this into my posts of your own volition, hence vehemently disagreeing with every post I've made as if, by laying out ET process, I am by proxy wholeheartedly supporting Ms Shoesmith and the Haringay/Parliamentary villains of the piece. Hence yours and his apparent determination to find wrong with everything I write on principle without actually knowing if what I am saying is correct or not. Your post 31 being a perfect example of this.

If you want know my thoughts on that poor little boy and the abject horror and suffering he endured at the hands of that turgid monster and her savage brute of a boyfriend, or how I felt reading the graphic details of the abuse meted out to him, or what I think of Shoesmith and Haringay just ask. My posts on this thread thus far certainly won't tell you.
All fair enough. Reading your posts they jump logic and you cited myself and Mr Occam for having a pop at you. I can't speak for him but I found you to be objective to a point then plain obstinate.

If you think due process has been followed then great. Personally it sticks in my throat because she received the payout not because of unfair dismissal but a technicality. I find that galling.

If we want to delve into semantics Fred Goodwin deserves every single penny of his pension.
 
I've no issue with you either,or OR, and never have.

However not once in this thread, or indeed anywhere on this board, have I ever said that I agree with the decision, the payment, what she did/didn't do, or in fact any other aspect of the case. Clearly you and OR have read this into my posts of your own volition, hence vehemently disagreeing with every post I've made as if, by laying out ET process, I am by proxy wholeheartedly supporting Ms Shoesmith and the Haringay/Parliamentary villains of the piece.

Certainly I never interpreted any of your posts that way, and didn't intend any of mine to suggest that I did.
 
Great to have a scapegoat, isn't it?

As far as I can see, Shoesmith is a lot less worthy of vilification than:

a) the child's parents/guardians (who, let's not forget, killed him)
b) Balls, who shamelessly played to the gallery to show how tough he is, and
c) Ofsted, who changed their "objective" report at their paymasters' wish.

Perhaps the most long lasting impact, though, is that it will be years before a decent social worker applies to work in Haringey again.
 
Great to have a scapegoat, isn't it?

As far as I can see, Shoesmith is a lot less worthy of vilification than:

a) the child's parents/guardians (who, let's not forget, killed him)
b) Balls, who shamelessly played to the gallery to show how tough he is, and
c) Ofsted, who changed their "objective" report at their paymasters' wish.

Perhaps the most long lasting impact, though, is that it will be years before a decent social worker applies to work in Haringey again.
What is she worthy of then?
 
Great to have a scapegoat, isn't it?

As far as I can see, Shoesmith is a lot less worthy of vilification than:

a) the child's parents/guardians (who, let's not forget, killed him)
b) Balls, who shamelessly played to the gallery to show how tough he is, and
c) Ofsted, who changed their "objective" report at their paymasters' wish.

Perhaps the most long lasting impact, though, is that it will be years before a decent social worker applies to work in Haringey again.

We vilified all those before though. Now it's Shoesmith's turn again.
 
I think she had that. What about the payout? Removing yourself from the other protagonists you mention. As the accepting head of an institution, she should shoulder the same for its failings surely?
If Ofsted hadn't beefed up their report, would she have been dismissed? Who knows, but no doubt she would have made a case that cuts to staff and training had direct impacts on the quality of the service, and that she was working against overwhelming odds.

For me, Balls is far more culpable and it was he that dodged his responsibility shamelessly.
 
If Ofsted hadn't beefed up their report, would she have been dismissed? Who knows, but no doubt she would have made a case that cuts to staff and training had direct impacts on the quality of the service, and that she was working against overwhelming odds.

For me, Balls is far more culpable and it was he that dodged his responsibility shamelessly.
That's fine but it doesn't absolve her....
 
No, in post 39 you replied to my doubt that an ET would have awarded her that much by stating that it could be stated with certainty how much an ET would award someone simply by knowing their terms of employment.

In post 50 you gave lengthy reasons as to why what an ET might award someone can be very unpredictable and dependent on all sorts of subjective judgements.

No, in 39 I said that if you "doubt" an ET would have awarded a sum, you could do the calculation to see what she might have got based on the calculation that does exist. I then also said in 50 that any award can be subject to other factors as seen fit by the ET. However this does not change the fact that there is a basic calculation which applies to every UD case. When you submit a schedule loss/remedy based on that calculation, you don't reduce the amount you are claiming by the unknown factors, you argue that there should not be any reductions, just as the other side will argue that there should. Remedy hearings can take days, on top of and after the actual judgement hearing. The latter post does not in any way contradict the former as you have claimed.
 
Well as "patsys" go, the head of a council's child protection service whose systematic failings were responsible in no small part for the preventable death of a child is one of the more justifiable ones.
Interesting use of the word "preventable". Given that removing the child from the parental home is the very last resort and that staff were poorly resourced and trained as a result of government cuts in the face of rising demand, how exactly would you have gone about preventing it..?
 
We're only stuck on the side issue of how employment tribunals may or may not operate because of your apparent insistence that Shoesmith's payout (posts 42 and 44) was awarded to her by a court or a tribunal. It wasn't.

As I have already said 545673776 times :rolleyes::) I understood that the payment she received was from an ET "award" following her Appeal. You and the sources you posted suggest/claim it was an out of court "settlement". I haven't seen any conclusive proof either way so I'm open.
 
Interesting use of the word "preventable". Given that removing the child from the parental home is the very last resort and that staff were poorly resourced and trained as a result of government cuts in the face of rising demand, how exactly would you have gone about preventing it..?

I've no idea, but I wasn't being paid £133,000 to take responibility for the very council department with that remit.

As I have already said 545673776 times :rolleyes::) I understood that the payment she received was from an ET "award" following her Appeal. You and the sources you posted suggest/claim it was an out of court "settlement". I haven't seen any conclusive proof either way so I'm open.

It was an out of court settlement.
 
Interesting use of the word "preventable". Given that removing the child from the parental home is the very last resort and that staff were poorly resourced and trained as a result of government cuts in the face of rising demand, how exactly would you have gone about preventing it..?

The small fact at the time of the death of baby Peter there were no government cuts.
 
Typical distraction technique. ;)

Totally, do we get to have makeup sex now? :p I promise I won't mention ETs until you light your PCC. ;)

It was an out of court settlement.

Link? Not a press report, you can't trust what you read in the paper.

Maybe I've missed a trick here but please explain what would be the point of an "out of court settlement", the sole purpose of which is so the Respondent can avoid legal expenses and liability and avoid going to court, in a case that had already got to court, and been appealed, and upheld in the court of appeal and therefore she has won her case. She has no need to settle.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, £130k in London isn't a massive salary: a lot of head teachers in biggish schools earn more... And that's not to mention the salaries of 25-year old management consultants...

The truth is that the death would only have been prevented with better resourced, trained and supported staff at the front line. Ball's intervention ensured that the first two conditions were never addressed and, as for the last one - support of social workers under extreme pressure in one of the poorest boroughs in Britain - well, he just stuck two fingers up at them...

The small fact at the time of the death of baby Peter there were no government cuts.
Are you for real? I take it that you believe the NHS budget is ring-fenced...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top