Question:
Does ANYONE agree with me about the baby P case?
Paul C
14 years ago
The head of the social services that dealth with the baby P case, has won her case for wrongful dismissal.

To me that is quite right, how can anyone else take the blame for pure evil from the parents, it is well known that the parents did a very good job in covering what they did to that poor little lad.

Imagine you work for social services and you go into a childs home, and they have a bit of chocolate on their face, would you wipe it away to check for marks underneath?? Of course you wouldn't!!

We can never defend against evil parents, just as we cant defend against any other acts of evil, ie 7/7, Thomas Watt Hamilton, and many many more.

Why do we as a country have to blame people, who are not to blame, yes i will admit they COULD have done more, but why would they when did not suspect that the person put in front of them could be so evil
Fourteen answers:
Jan409
14 years ago
She was sacked because the dept that she headed failed to do what they was paid to do....

she as boss carries the can for that

Nobody is saying she murdered the little boy, but after 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police her dept still failed to remove the child from the clutches of these inhuman adults

Social workers, and others who work with children are highly trained to be aware of cover-ups and chocolate on his face should be treated as suspect , as is all his bruising

The child was failed primarily by the adults around him, but also be inept so called professionals who should have removed him long ago, with the history of 50 injuries that he had sustained
?
14 years ago
Okay so she might not have directly harmed the child..but in her dereliction of duties..she actively contributed to systematic failure of the front line services..

When a death occurs in the workplace..an enquiry is set up to discover the root cause of that fatality..this is no different..she has to be held responsible for her failure to implement correctly the recommendations from the Victoria Climbie tragedy...she failed to act accordingly when procedures were routinely not followed...

That was her job...to oversee and 'manage' those systems...she failed and as a result..60 visits later..the boy was murdered..

You can't save every child but if she had done her job properly..he might have lived...

For her to defend her actions then...and subsequently bring this action shows where her true motives lie...

Now she will succeed in receiving a substantial payout...that will come from Haringey council..thus depriving more frontline services of money...so indirectly she is still detrimentally affecting the care of children...What a lovely person..glad you think she deserves it...
?
8 years ago
The regulation is an *** thus.those monsters forfeited their rights with the help of hideously torturing an harmless.Its a pity that we seem to bypass out of our thank you to guard those scum yet our young ones can go through the agonies of hell and its ok!!!!! are you able to blame the persons for paying for a tad disenchanted.This little possible have been anybody human beings.The regulation desires a finished evaluation to grant a minimum of a few of those could be baby torturers accessible a minimum of a danger of something quite gruesome in the event that they get caught.possibly we could desire to lead them to think of two times extremely of a advantageous snug cellular for some years and finished anonimity!!! yet i'm getting your message,you dont make the regulation and we could close up and enable this get swept below the carpet.standard,standard!!!! regulation exchange needed
scooter
14 years ago
Jan 409 has said it all - totally agree. They do have a difficult job however they are trained and the main concern is the child. We had a young girl die near where I live 3 years ago with horrendous injuries. The neighgbours used to see the girl in an upstairs window and kept calling the social services. She was never seen playing out and always looked sad. She eventually died with horrifice cigarette burns and over 400 bruises.
RichB
14 years ago
I agree with you up to a point. Sharon Shoesmith clearly had to take much of the rap for the failings in the Baby P case, but that doesn't mean she should have been sacked by decree in Parliament without due process or right of reply.



Senior politicians cannot be allowed to ride roughshed over employment law just so they can score a few cheap points with the tabloids on the back of a tragic child abuse case.
14 years ago
to me, the point is that the case is far too complicated to issue a summary dismissal, without the dismissed person having right of reply/appeal first. Summary dismissal is for things like assault where there are witnesses, drunkenness at work, going AWOL etc. In this case lawyers can argue until the cows come home. Balls was just daft to do what he did, she had been recruited to 'meet targets'.
Helen S
14 years ago
I agree with you. Sharon Shoesmith allowed people who worked under her to get away with the most slack ars*d behaviour i have ever heard of and hers in attempting to justify it was even more contemptible. We know of two children who died 'on her watch'. Victoria Climbie and Baby Peter.

How many more were there and how many have gone through hell because she failed them in all respects and regards by not being up to her job?



HOWEVER



She WAS wrongfully dismissed according to the same employment laws which protect everyones employment in this country. The law is the law and the guidelines were not utilised in this case therefore leaving you and i, the taxpayers, at a disadvantage because of the actions of a fool.



The fool? ED BALLS. Number one twit! He had employment advice coming out of his ears! - or he should have had - the HR offices in Westminster or Harringay Council surely must have been consulted before he went into action. He doesn't have and never did have any HR expertise before he was elected to anything! If not, why not? Did he ignore advice?



Whatever happened, the fool walked all over this dreadful time with a pair of ten league boots and managed to make matters worse rather than better.



He totally ignored the correct procedures which would have removed Sharon Shoesmith without giving her any recourse to future appeals. By simply sacking her, he violated her employment rights and that is exactly why she won her case. Not that she was competent, just that she was sacked incompetently and wrongly by someone who was just as incompetent as her!



Well that nasty little bit is probably going to cost us in the region of £1.5M. I sincerely hope that the prolifically demonstrated trustworthiness of some MPs is not yet again on show here - surely he hasn't done a deal with her? He wouldn't, would he?
Misty Blue
14 years ago
Yeah I don't see how cutting off someones head cures the disease that pervades S.S. but I disagree about not suspecting evil.Surely that's their job,to suspect anything is possible including evil parents?Wouldn't make sense to approach a case blinkered.
14 years ago
He did not have just a piece of chocolate on his face, it was a lot more than that.....this little boy was failed by all who saw him, the social worker, the doctor, everyone, they should all be held responsible. I thought it was so sad, that sharon shoesmith said, today, we cannot prevent the death of children.....well....in that case.....wtf do we pay you £130.000.00 a year for?????????
Faith
14 years ago
i do agree with your Paul C (and isn't that a refreshing change!)...but she shouldn't gloat. And morally speaking, not legally or technically, she should admit the failures of her department instead of accepting compensation for their negligence. They may have been hoodwinked by those monster "parents" but that doesn't exonerate them at all.
14 years ago
after 60 visits and a wage of 130 grand a year you would think she would of taken more interest and care over the case ,in an office she was responsible for so yes she was partially responsible for the outcome



nobody ever claimed that she had hurt the child , obviously she had not

lessons should of been learnt after victoria climbe and maria colwell I am sure these cases were used during their training

baby p was at the at risk register and had 60 visits so obviously it was strongly suspected that things werent quite right
?
14 years ago
its the blame culture again paul.so if i go shoplifting in sainsburys, it will not be my fault . it will be the fault of sainsburys for leaving goods where i can reach them. same with baby P's scum family. it wasnt their fault they beat a child and tormented him. it was susan shoesmiths fault for not seeing it..

haringay is a labour run council and it has failed in other things too. the social services were overloaded with work and they cant take every child into care.
† PRAY †
14 years ago
The courts have to judge these cases - we don't know if this woman was negligent or not..

SS helps teens abort babies without parent consent. They do a lot of bad & good things but I don't have all the info on this to judge

P
?
14 years ago
Very well said Jan409!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.