Sharon Shoesmith (Baby P case) is appealing the judical review of her dismissal?

Question

Sharon Shoesmith (Baby P case) is appealing the judical review of her dismissal?

Answer 1

Peter's death and treatment were an appalling crime and the failure of the various agencies that should have protected him is shameful. Ed Balls decided to make Sharon Shoesmith a scapegoat, sacked her and vilified her. The rest of Haringey Council and Ed Balls are still in work.



We should not let the nature of the crime and associated incompetence stand in the way of the simple question: Did Sharon Shoesmith deserve the treatment she got? Let the Courts decide. A lynch mob is not going to see justice served for Peter or for Sharon Shoesmith.

Answer 2

she claims she was denied right of reply. The court case will determine if she has a case or not, if she has no case then she will simply lose. I suspect that she may well have a case, but I will wait and see.



Once all of the social workers have been sacked/resigned/driven away. I wonder then who will do the job of protecting the vulnerable?

Answer 3

If a person has been dealt with illegally, merely for political expediency, then she is entitled to have her cased judged under law





the law applies to all, equally, not just the people you like

Answer 4

Whilst Shoesmith was ultimately responsible for her departments awful failings around the Baby P case, I do also believe she was conveniently used by the media to whip the public into a bloodthirsty frenzy. It was almost as if she was TOTALLY to blame. Social work is a very delicate and sensitive career where mistakes can and do happen, sadly.

That said, I don't think she has any shame, dignity or morals for carrying on like this, and if I were her I would quiet down and fade into obscurity rather than pursue compensation.

Answer 5

Perhaps if she and the depatment of which she was head had considered the health of that poor child during his horrific tortured life then this whole dreadful event could or would have been avoidable

Answer 6

It is irrelevant of what this woman oversaw or failed to oversea with regards to this appeal, simply because everyone has the right to a fair trial and to being treated equally. If an injustice has been done against her as a knee-jerk reaction or to be made out as a scapegoat so that politicians don't get the chop instead then she has every right to appeal.



Just remember, the media can be very vindictive particularly over emotive cases like this. They accuse first and only answer later when found guilty in the high courts. Often we hear of celebrities with enough money suing newspapers (Madonna recently) over far more trivial issues and winning massive damages. The media do this to people often without consequence to themselves, regardless of whether what they report is actually true or not, and more often than not leaving the person who they report on with the consequence of dealing with a misinformed public who jump on a bandwagon of hate and retribution fuelled by certain parts of the media.



While I agree that it was her department at fault and that heads certainly should roll for this sort of mismanagement that lead to a child's appauling death, people ought to bear in mind who actually murdered this child and also ask themselves why is it that politicians higher up the tree are "never" held accountable, it always seems to be someone elses fault, never the govenment's!

Answer 7

She still thinks she did nothing wrong.

So she reckons her health has been affected. Boo Hoo!!!!!!!!

Peter Connolly is dead because of her negligence, Nothing

that has happened to her so far in enough IMHO.

Answer 8

These sort of people have no shame, you are so right, and she will probably get the finacial compensation she is after to.

Answer 9

She clearly feels she was a victim of a press campaign that 'heads must roll' - she "is expected to claim that the children's secretary's intervention was disproportionately influenced by media pressure" - and I'm afraid I can see her point.



The press was baying for blood because it sells papers and ministers shouldn't be swayed by media frenzy.



Her case should have been dealt with through normal procedures. It's quite possible that she would still have been found to be responsible and sacked, but we - the tax payer - wouldn't face paying damages to her for being removed by emergency measures to appease the red top press and it's ignorant followers.

Answer 10

She probably has a case (with all the legalities) but she doesn't deserve to work in that environment again. Common sense and hard decisions are more important than rulebooks, which she probably followed to the letter.

Answer 11

I don't know enough about the case to comment tbh.



Obviously I know she was in charge of a department under which the little boy died - but I don't know how far removed she was from the day to day running of his particular case.



I understand that as a figure head it's likely that she would carry the can - but isn't it equally likely that she would be a scapegoat? The public need someone to pay for baby P's tragic loss of life and for the fact that he had multiple injuries and yet was left in harms way. However, presumably there were a series of mistakes made with various people along the way - why is she the only one to leave? What about other people directly involved in his care? What about the police? What about the doctors involved?



From what I've read and heard there were failings throughout the system which led to this. I don't see what's to be gained by baying for blood. Couldn't she have actually made more of a difference by staying in the job and making internal changes?

Answer 12

A captain of a ship that runs aground. The pilot of an aircraft that that hits another on the ground. A bus driver getting stuck under a low bridge. They will all get the sack for their actions. Sharon Shoesmith is no different. She was at the helm/wheel/joystick when everything went bad. She deserved the push and got it. As in every other case of its kind, she has the right of appeal. The appeal will be a waste of time. Hopefully that should be the end of that sorry little episode. cheers

Answer 13

Unfortunately she has a very strong case as Ed Balls openly discussed her incompetence and removal from office before any departmental interview or discussion. She is said to be suffering from post traumatic shock! Crazy isn't it? Two small children in her care died horribly and she only gets post traumatic shock when she's fired!!! What a pity she wasn't kicked out when poor little Victoria Climbie was murdered!

Answer 14

None whatsoever. She thinks she can sit and say she didn't get her case across to the public or her employers. We all remember her ranting on radio 4 and several TV encounters in which she refused to have anything to do with the case.



She doesn't seem to understand that the council were not just paying her to sit on her @r$e!

Answer 15

No shame at all, sadly she is probably right, by law, and will undoubtedly get a handsome amount of taxpayers money. I for one hope if she does no one will employ her again. Not just her but any one who just passes the buck the whole time and never actually does the job they are paid to do.

Answer 16

My heart absolutely bleeds for her, and the saddest thing of all (apart from the death baby P of course) is that she will probably win her case and be awarded obscene amounts for her 'suffering'.

God that woman infuriates me!

Answer 17

She wasn't the one who beat that poor child black and blue and broke just about every bone in his body, including snapping his spine.



She was simply the scapegoat.



She has nothing to be ashamed off.



His killers however ... that's another story.

Answer 18

Her health has been affected???????? What about the poor baby she allowed to be tortured and killed? That ***** has no shame, I hope karma comes soon and bites her on the bum

Answer 19

how about we all sign a petition showing her were to put her head in the ready made noose were sending her hopefully her suicidal feelings may stretch to the use of the noose