Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Council Leader resigns
Tags for Forum Posts: Ally Pally, george meehan, haringey chief executive, liz santry
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Why are you flabbergasted? She caused a person's death, and was incompetent. Why would she win? Good riddance.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
O sancta simplicitas! Anette, don't you think the case may have been a little more complex than 'sack her, flog her, hang her!' ?
-
-
No I don't. She was responsible. She was well paid for doing her job. She didn't do it properly. Its what happens. Only surprise is that she had the nerve to actually complain about being sacked for incompetence. Very happy she's not getting another penny.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
You may be right John about the 'compensation': The Sun suggests she's going after £1,000,000.
If this was only about missteps at a press conference, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Peter Connelly and Victoria Climbie are not in a position to claim for "unfair" dismissal.
.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Why are you bringing up Victoria Climbie? Who was sacked unfairly over that?
-
-
Shoesmith's dismissal (so far, without compensation) was in the context of the quality of Children's Services at our Council.
In the summary of judgement (in the link helpfully provided by Alan Stanton) the judge accepts that the Ofsted report was not directed at Shoesmith personally (as was claimed by her lawyer), but was an investigation into the state of Children's Services at Haringey following widespread concern, although not shared by all.
Victoria Climbie, like Peter, was killed while on Haringey Council's Child Protection Register. Some time ago, I asked you what you thought should be the purpose of such a thing but you did not reply.
Although there was a public enquiry over Victoria's death, I don't think anyone was sacked, even though sackings there should have been. That no one was held to account in that case was thanks in part to the reputed £3,000,000 Haringey spent on lawyers, at the public enquiry, in order to avoid responsibility.
We still need a public enquiry for Peter. I for one am not convinced that things have changed for the better.
-
-
Some time ago, I asked you what you thought should be the purpose of such a thing but you did not reply
Sorry, I may have lapsed while thinking. I've got no answer for you. Still doesn't mean I can't feel very queasy about the whole concept of a child protection register.
Good book for the curious. -
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Reading the Sun's cynical tub-thumping is nauseating. I just read this account in the Daily Mail, not known for its liberalism, of Tracey Connelly's life. And Stephen Barker, her partner in crime, is described as having an IQ of 60.
If their stories were known to the social workers, and it seems they were, then there is culpability. But Shoesmith did not kill the child - the three 'carers' did. I get mystified when the baying public accuses social workers of blame when children are killed. No, it's the ones who kill who are to blame. Social workers have the impossible job of trying to prevent this. Perspective, please.
-
-
Were their stories known to the social workers is good question for a public enquiry. And if their stories were not known, then why not? The mental health aspect of the killer – known to the council – has received scant attention and may be the last aspect of the council covering up, which deserves the disinfectant of sunlight.
Someone who observed Barker at the trial noted he rocked back and forth a lot and had not had a change of clothes in days.
Barker was educated in a special council school and was well known to Haringey. He was ill equipped to deal with independent life. Had he shown signs that should have alerted the authorities to possible violent behaviour? Did they know where he was living? And who with? None of this is rocket science.
The service aimed at our most vulnerable fellow citizens is the Cinderella service at Haringey, with low status and accorded a low priority. It was tacked on to Shoesmith's responsibilities after she joined as Education Chief. I hear on the grapevine that little has changed in the practices of the department.
If the job of preventing such killings is really impossible, then why have a a Child Protection Register? Why have a department, in theory, dedicated to Children at risk?
If the public does not show concern for children at risk then Haringey will just continue with its own culture – and the most vulnerable may receive little help from the body charged with their protection.
-
-
Mwah!
-
-
Anette, Mr Justice Foskett says he isn't so naive as to think that every commentator who wants to comment on the case will go to the bother of reading his judgement in full. Alan's link gives us the choice of reading the full judgement, the summary, or at least the judge's remarks on handing down the judgement.
Paragraph 24 of his remarks makes clear his opinion that Haringey's decision to sack Sharon Shoesmith without compensation may have been unduly influenced by Ed Balls' comments at the press Conference on (?) Dec 1 2008. The judge is clear that this interfered with employment rights - an Employment Tribunal's need to be fair and to be seen to be fair. It's not a duty owed only to Ms Shoesmith but to the future of the Council's Children's Services - and to the recruitment of succeeding DCSs for Haringey.
I think Alan has been making similar points about upholding rights under employment law.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
