ForumGarden

good evening from a rather windy grumpy towers

( have you had curry again ED!!)

smiling sharon shoesmith has something to smile about she,s just won her appeal against being sacked from harringay council and is in line for up to £2.5 million in compo i find this story vile and disgusting like shoeslug herself

SHAMELESS Sharon Shoesmith may pocket up to £2.5m in compensation - after winning an appeal over her sacking for the Baby P scandal.

The ex-boss of Children's Services at Haringey Council successfully challenged a previous ruling which had upheld her dismissal by former Children's Secretary Ed Balls.

Baby P - Peter Connelly - was 17 months old when he died in August 2007 at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and their lodger, Barker's brother Jason Owen.

The child had suffered 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over the final eight months of his life.

A series of reviews identified missed opportunities when officials could have saved his life if they had acted properly on the warning signs in front of them.

But despite this, Shoesmith today won a High Court appeal against her sacking.

She could now be in line for a pay-out worth between £400,000 and £2.5million - although lawyers for both Haringey Council and the government said they may appeal the decision at the Supreme Court.

If the payout goes ahead, it could consist of around £1m in damages and £1.5m in lost wages and pension funds.

Mr Balls fired Shoesmith from her £133,000-a-year post in 2008 following a report that said she was "ultimately responsible" for "a disturbing, shambolic state of affairs" and "shocking failings" in her children's services department.

Mr Balls said he had to intervene and direct her removal "to restore public confidence in the child protection system itself".

The sacking followed a 1.6MILLION signature Sun petition demanding Shoesmith lose her job.

Shoesmith was fired after the report was released, but the court has today ruled that Mr Balls and Haringey Council failed to follow correct procedure in doing this - even though criticisms of Shoesmith's regime in an Ofsted report were CORRECT.

Legal papers showed Shoesmith "accepted" a string of findings by Ofsted.

But she now claims she had no chance to contest them at the time and was illegally and unfairly sacked.

Her lawyers argued that she was the victim of "a flagrant breach of natural justice".

Shoesmith said outside court today: "I would love to go back to work (in Haringey) but that's not possible but I hope to carry on with my career with children in some capacity."

She said: "Having spent a lifetime protecting, caring (for) and educating children, my sorrow about the death of Peter Connelly in Haringey when I was director is something which will stay with me for the rest of my life.

"But as the judges have said, making a 'public sacrifice' of an individual will not prevent further tragedies."

Shoesmith had asked the three judges to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void.

She also asked that they rule she remain entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day.

The judges said there were outstanding questions over the "remedy" which should be granted to Ms Shoesmith.

They said: "There is no question of her returning to her position. That is conceded on her behalf.

"However, there are issues concerning compensation following her dismissal without notice and without any payment in lieu of notice.



Prime Minister David Cameron today backed his Education Secretary Michael Gove who is to challenge the Court of Appeal's ruling.

Speaking at the G8 conference in France, the premier said: "Of course I back my Education Secretary in making this appeal.

Read more: Shoesmith wins appeal | The Sun |News

AAG

what a vile woman and to say that she,d like to continue to work with children is adding insult to injury

the blood of baby peter is not only the hands of those who contributed to his death

but also on the hands of the social workers and shoesmith herself and to award her up to £2.5 million is just obscene.

no doubt shoeslug is out celebrating tonight deciding how to spend her blood money.

i only hope that Michael Gove,s appeal is sucessfull and shoeslug gets what she so richly deserves NOTHING !!!!!!!!!!

NIGHT NIGHT

Really?

This woman will never be able to find employment in her field of specialty again unless she starts her own company... and who would hire her? Of course she deserves compensation. She didn't personally handle the baby's case. She didn't look at an abused child and say "oh, well, better than being in foster care." She was focused on educational issues and didn't put as much effort into child protection issues. Why? Because that's what she was hired to do.

She was scapegoated. The wrongdoers were the people who harmed and killed the child, not the person who happened to be at the head of a government department at the time. Why not blame the prime minister every time someone gets murdered? Fire him/her every time a body is found. By your logic, that's entirely reasonable.

the grumps;1360437 wrote: no doubt shoeslug is out celebrating tonight deciding how to spend her blood money.You know, she'd not be in line for that much compensation if people like you didn't post hate-material like this all over the place. This thread is evidence the compensation package will take into account. You just personally added a few thousand pounds to her retirement fund, grump.

i agree that the death of baby peter is down to those who committed the act but it is also down to social services who neglected to ensure his wellbeing that is from the social workers dealing with the case to shoeslug who was in charge of the department .

if they had any doubts baby peter should have been taken and examined social services need more powers in cases like this to remove a suspected abused child with police assistance and have them examined imediatly by a doctor.

as for the vile parents and uncle i hope they are getting a rough time in jail.

koan / spot i respect your opinions but how can you look in to baby peters blue eyes and post that total tripe

sleep in peace angel

grumpy

the grumps;1360454 wrote: koan / spot i respect your opinions but how can you look in to baby peters blue eyes and post that total tripeThey were cremated, surely. I do hope they have been by now.

Just because you're angry doesn't mean you can randomly choose who to punish. Of all the many people between the baby and Shoesmith in the line of people who could have said something, she's the furthest away from most responsible.

Her only flaw was she didn't react dramatically enough and the media picked out one statement, probably made in response to someone implying she was the guilty person, and they ignored everything else that was said. Because it made better headlines. Got people riled up. Sold more papers.

They said: "There is no question of her returning to her position. That is conceded on her behalf.

"However, there are issues concerning compensation following her dismissal without notice and without any payment in lieu of notice.


Appears to me the 'Hirer and Firer' was at fault, so any compo is down to Employment Law oversights, and totally separate from the death.

Somewhat separate. Her being the persecuted as responsible for the death is what keeps her from being able to get a job in the same field. It's what makes her near unemployable.

Assuming she still had twenty years to run until her retirement age (65 in England for women), two and a half million is about what she'd have earned on her previous career path. It's not an unreasonable sum, even discounting the damage to her image among the public at large, if she was unfairly dismissed.

You have to laugh, from the article

Prime Minister David Cameron announced the Government would join Haringey Council in a bid to overturn the Appeal Court's decision. He said: "It's important that governments provide accountability when things go wrong."


Does that mean he will resign if he gets things wrong?

In any other walk of life the person at the top is the person with overall responsibility. Shoesmith should have lost her job.


Name one banker who has gone to jail or lost his job having bankrupted the country or one politician who loses his job for incompetence. As usual it's one law for the rich and another for the helpless. Maybe she shpuld have taken oput a super injunction to prevent her case being discussed in the papers.

Joan Smith: Shoesmith's humiliation is not justice. It's vengeance - Joan Smith, Commentators - The Independent

Number of points, ofsted changed a favourable report to one condemnatory under pressure from government. Up until recently she had an exemplary record she was quite clearly made a scapegpat with ni chance to defende herself. More to the point a scapegoat means you avoid facing up to the real problem which probably have something to do with government interference and a tick box regulatory process that paralyses the ability of social services to make any decisions. It's like a coal miner having to fill in a form to prove they have swung the pick in the correct manner and then getting permission to swing it, you end up with nothing being done.

If you want to live in a country where politicians can pillory people while covering up their own incompetence keep reading papers like the sun.

Two marines were killed this week and others are now disabled because the armoured vehicles they were supposed to be using haven't been supplied. But then we all know governments do no wrong and never try to cover up their own incompetence do they? Never mind they can get a burger cooked by david cameron so long as they keep their mouths shut. The sun is on the side of truth and justice all is well in the world. Praise the Murdoch and when he gets control of BskyB none of us will know any different.

Maybe she did need to be sacked but we have laws in place to prevent people being victimised by employers for very good reasons.

Warning over cost of Baby P case to taxpayers - Home News, UK - The Independent

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This ruling will give a much-needed boost to social workers up and down the country who protect daily thousands of vulnerable children and adults.

"It should serve as a lesson that whipping up a campaign of vilification and hatred will never save a single child's life."

He added: "We as a society must accept that, if we are to place such enormous burdens on social workers and other child protection professionals, we must support them and make sure they have adequate resources.

"Social work teams continue to operate with high turnover, high vacancy rates and high caseloads. And the situation is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future with local authorities facing huge funding cuts."