Comments on: Sharon Shoesmith’s day in court

By: Son of watchful

Son of watchful — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:04:19 +0000

Fundamentally this case in a forthcoming employment tribunal will come down to whether Sharon Shoesmith was properly treated by her employer in accordance with employment law and rightly so. The tribunal is unlikely to be swayed by the lynch mob instincts encouraged by that odious rag the Sun. While the judge in the judicial review indicates that there is not enough evidence to prove that Ofsted was leant on by Ed Ball’s department, it might be reasonable to conclude that a government body is likely to toe the line of its political masters even if the order was not explicitly given to do so. From the very start it is clear that Ed Balls statement about the need to sack her without notice was clearly prejudicial as it preceded any disciplinary hearing and this would have automatically made her dismissal unfair. He wanted a specific outcome and Haringay Council provided it. Ed Balls struck me as much more arrogant than Mrs Shoesmith but then he always strikes me like that. She should win her case on the grounds that she was unfairly treated under the law and as such she deserves to.
Social workers in child protection have a very difficult job to do as devious and malevolent parents who appear to cooperate can be very plausible and make it difficult for staff to judge when or if a child should be taken into care. They do not have crystal ball and simply cannot always know what is going on behind closed doors. I personally think that in certain instances social work methods, which rely on trying to engage clients and helping them improve, are outdated and ineffective. What is really required is that social workers should have a quasi police role with legal powers including power of entry, arrest and search as well as the right to ensure that children about whom there are serious concerns of potential harm ,can be freely checked and medically examined if necessary. This would send an unequivocal message to potential child abusers. The feckless may gain from social work support but more dangerous parents require a much more vigorous approach so that they understand that child abuse will not be tolerated and whatever needs to be done to protect them will be done.

By: AM

AM — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:30:11 +0000

If only the world was so simple. Concerns about this case cannot be reduced to a one size fits all explanation – the Sun. The paper has been disgraceful in its hounding of Sharon Shoesmith. That is not in dispute here. The values outlined – ‘accuracy, due process, fairness’ are all things that should not be abandoned in the face of ‘the mob’ although why accountability should not figure there begs a question. Much of the defence of Sharon Shoesmith seems to amount to a desire to avoid accountability. People will root for the values suggested and should defend Sharon Shoesmith’s right to avail of them but they could also root for the right of citizens to be protected from the behaviour of Haringey and any council or public body which lets its most vulnerable down so catastrophically.

By: Rupert

Rupert — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:13:07 +0000

If you want to know the truth about this matter, I suggest you just look for a moment at the comments which , even right now -even when, on any view, a fair point has been made that she was not given the opportunity to respond to criticism — are still emerging from the Sun- ferociously vicious attempts to denigrate and humiliate, and to use any material that can be distorted and misdescribed for this purpose. To me this is just one further area in which the Murdoch media interests are seeking to disfigure, degrade, and debase our national life, using the tecniques of the witch hunt and lynch mob to do so so.What is at stake is a very major issue; and everybody should on this be rooting for Ms Shoesmith. Are our institutions of goverment and law capable of withstanding a lynch mob origanised by the editor of the Sun, in unholy alliance with party leaders, and the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, seeking use the death of a child to gain a few extre votes; or are, at least the judges, capable of saying “no –accuracy, due process, fairness – these transcendant, and, tradtionally at any rate, English things, cannot and must not be abandoned because everybody is frightened of a vengeful mob , and if politicains and public servants do abandon them, they will must pay a price, and they need, in all our interests, to be fully aware of this, the next time the editor of the Sun supported by the leader of the Conservative party, is oganising a lynch mob “

By: AM

AM — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:45:23 +0000

It seems natural that children will rally to the defence of their parents but it does not mean that the points they raise are right. Nor does it mean they will do so without due regard to the wider context. In this case, however, the criticism of Lynn Featherstone seems tenuous. Following party lines works both ways. There was a particular party in Haringey who were silent about the behaviour of the council in relation to the institutionalised neglect of Baby Peter. Lynn Featherstone raised the issues throughout and did a great job in bringing Haringey to some sort of account.
To suggest that Sharon Shoesmith acted out of loyalty rather than a sense of self-preservation may be true but it is hardy something that can be cited in her defence. It would have been better had she have opened up about the case rather than covered up out of a misguided sense of loyalty for colleagues who had a case to answer. And the arrogance was breathtaking. How many people admit to being arrogant? They mask it in something else.

This case should not be about political points and it seems to me that Lynn Featherstone did not seek to make any. How else was the terrible truth about this case to be extracted from those unwilling to yield it? And with considerable integrity she held their feet to the fire. How are unelected bureaucrats to be removed from office if somebody des not step into the breach?

The Sun was disgraceful, hounding Sharon Shoesmith when she was with friends or going out for a meal. It was as if she was condemned to a puritanically created hell. But none of that obviates the need for a radical shake up at Haringey. Nor does it negate her role in the systemic problem that existed there.

By: Top of the Blogs: The Golden Dozen #138

Top of the Blogs: The Golden Dozen #138 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:33:53 +0000

[...] Tall on Lib Dem Voice. Nick gains his best ever approval rating from LDV-reading party members. 5. Sharon Shoesmith’s day in court on Lynne Featherstone’s Parliament & Haringey Diary blog. Lynne’s no-holds-barred [...]

By: Lynne Featherstone

Lynne Featherstone — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:35:40 +0000

Dear Miss Shoesmith,

It is right that you defend and support your mother. I have always supported her right to take her case forward. However, the rest of your comments we will not agree upon and clearly your experience of your mother and mine are simply different. My priority and my focus has always and only been to ensure that vulnerable children are better served in future in Haringey than they have been in the past.

By: Miss Shoesmith

Miss Shoesmith — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:41:55 +0000

Dear Ms Featherstone

This is the problem with politics. It’s all about saving face, back stabbing and towing the party line. I sincerely hope that you understand that this case is far more complex than your party political mutterings would have us believe.

I would invite you to come and sit with my sister and me in the court tomorrow and hear for yourself the reality of this case. My mother is NOT a politician and therefore showed integrity and loyalty to her colleagues and the council, to whom she had promised her support and commitment – they asked her not to quit, she told them she would not and she stood by it – simple. This is not passing the buck. She did say sorry (gosh how many times does this have to be reported before people will accept it???) but the Sun et al chose to report otherwise.

She is strong, decisive and sometimes tough. She needed to be. This was conveniently portrayed as arrogant, it made a juicy story, got tabloid readers buying papers and in the end, gave our esteemed secretary of state the excuse to send for her head.

I deplore you jumping on any aspect of this case as a way to win political points – this is what is wrong with politics today – where is your integrity? There are readers and commentors of this blog who have a greater understanding of the complexities of her role at the time and a deeper sense of justice and fairness that it seems you manage to express. I sincerely hope you will not win further support by twisting this tragic episode to your political benefit.

Yours sincerely,
Miss Shoesmith

By: Elizabeth Gromyko

Elizabeth Gromyko — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:18:52 +0000

I applaud Lynne’s comment – Haringey rejects criticism, brushes complaints aside, covers up the truth, closes ranks and attempts “to blag it out” .. believing that the problems will simply go away and that those who admonish, warn, complain or ask awkward questions will become frustrated and mute, unable to breach the stone wall of procrastination, prevarication and obfuscation that has been erected.

These two tragic cases have shocked us all and made national headline news. Complacency, arrogance and the refusal to shoulder responsibility – passing the buck – are imbedded in the LA’s culture. As “Dreaming Spires” points out Central Government has spawned this web that spreads so pervasively throughout our democratic institutions. LAs have, increasingly, been delegated responsibilities that they are simply not capable of handling. “Cabinet Government” is the name of just one more of the nails that have been hammered into the coffin of local accountability. Most of those whose taxes fund LA services, – including investments, salaries, bonuses, pensions and consultancy fees and so on – have little or no influence on “local government by dictat” – nor, in effect, does the Official Opposition. Yet, increasingly the failure of LAs to cope with the remit and responsibilities devolved to them means that, increasingly, power is shuffled off to quangos, civil servants in Whitehall or regionally. These, in turn, grab the reins of power unto themselves, issuing guidelines, statutes, regulations and “advice” – strangling the voice of the electorate which, understandably, becomes less and less motivate to speak out.

By: dreamingspire

dreamingspire — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:54:10 +0000

Agree with AM, but SS appears not to have had a proper review of the process by which she was sacked (which must include the part played by Ed Balls). Therefore I support the sacking, because she should have taken action to remedy the incompetence in the Children’s section of her dept (probably by getting central govt to draft in new managers and practitioners). She probably merits recompense for the abuse of process (not just the sacking, but, as Lynne points out, also for the incompetence of those above her for not themselves ensuring that improvement was made, and particularly so if they heard pleas from her and ignored them), plus a clear statement of her competence in education management. However, her later arrogance will count against her (probably by way of reduction in the damages award).
But this sorry episode is, I fear, just one more illustration of the way in which central govt has given tasks to LAs that the Councillors (and particularly the Executive Councillors) are far too often not capable of properly handling. It is one more nail in the coffin of democratic accountability at the local govt level, and it also, quite simply, increasingly delivers power into the hands of those civil servants (in Whitehall and regionally) who play divide and rule in order to gather more power to themselves – civil servants who mostly do not have the expertise that equivalent ranks have in nearby European countries.

By: AM

AM — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:44:13 +0000

She fell on the sword of arrogance she forged from her own haughtiness. The way she was treated after it by the red top press was disgraceful but she set herself up for it. MPs should take a stand. It is important that they become opinion formers and not mere vote chasers