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 John D on
-
It was an allegory on the McCarthy era. They believed in Communists in 1953 :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Yes, and in the McCarthy era there was an orchestrated climate of fear and hatred.
Joan Smith wrote an interesting article for The Independent yesterday. In Orwell foresaw our treatment of Sharon Shoesmith, she recalls the 'two-minutes hate'.
(Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale ward)
-
-
Which she could have avoided, had she done the professional, decent and honourable thing and resigned.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
John, before the death of Peter Connelly, Haringey Children's Services as a whole was not "a department which by all accounts was performing poorly".
Alan, before the death of Peter Connelly, there was a Public Enquiry into the death of Victoria Clmbie, as you know. Might Sharon Shoesmith have known about it as well? I'm sorry you find the whole business of Baby P to be largely a media-inspired storm-in-a-teacup plus witch-hunt. Perhaps the public anger was from knowing that, manifestly, Haringey has not learnt lessons.
Here are a few unedited excerpts (except for bolding) from Lord Laming's report, unfiltered by the hysterical press and amplifying social media websites of which you complain. This is not about the social workers, whose job I respect. It's about the way they were led. The culture did not change between 2003 and 2008. Even a partisan observer such as yourself might possibly recognise that history has repeated itself:
1.26 Some used the defence “no one ever told me”. The chief executive of Brent
council, Gareth Daniel, chose to describe his role as “strategic” and to distance
himself from the day-to-day realities. Gina Adamou, a Haringey councillor, said,
“If I ask questions she [Mary Richardson, the director of social services] would
say ‘everything is okay, do not worry, if there is a problem I will let you know’.”
I find this an unacceptable state of affairs. Elected councillors and senior officers
must ensure that they are kept fully informed about the delivery of services to the
populations they serve, and they must not accept at face value what they are told.
There was also a reluctance among senior officers to accept there was anything
they could have done for Victoria.
6.78 The state of play on unallocated cases in May 1999 apparently was not known
about at the top of office, nor were members apparently kept informed. Gina
Adamou was lead member of social services at the time and she thought that the
children’s service was in good shape. However, Councillor Adamou said she had
not seen Mr Duncan’s report and she was not informed of this situation: “In May
1999 I just came in after a lapse of two years as a lead member of social services
and, no, I could honestly say that I was not told at the time of this [nor did I see]
this Report, but there are reports that never come to members.”.
6.148 Councillor Adamou, lead member for social services from 17 May 1999 to 15 May
2000, cited the positive report from the Joint Review as the reason she thought
children’s services were running well. Against a background of council-wide cuts,
she agreed that this Joint Review seemed, to Haringey, to be as good as it could
get. Councillor Adamou said she was aware that the department had been working
towards the Joint Review for a year. Internal audits were taking place in Haringey
in order to assess performance. “My view was that preparation for the joint
inspection and report had been lengthy and thorough,” said Councillor Adamou.
Accordingly, she said she knew before the report was released that its conclusions
were generally favourable and that where they were not so, steps were being taken
to remedy defects. She said that she heard nothing from the senior officers, in
particular Ms Wilson and Ms Richardson, which indicated a different picture within
social services to the one painted by the Joint Review. Likewise, Councillor Meehan,
leader from May 1999, stated that his view of children’s services at the end of
1999 was as set out by the Joint Review.
[does that sound familiar? emphasis in bold]
6.149 Others took a very different view. Mr Lewington, a UNISON representative, advised
the Inquiry that the Joint Review “still sticks in my mind because it gave Haringey
something of a glowing report”. According to Mr Lewington, “People clearly
were expecting some fairly significant criticism as a result of the Joint Review.
They were quite surprised when instead the Joint Review said things were just
fine.” Mr Lewington stated that he thought “people felt the process had been
managed in such a way that they would come up with a good report”. Likewise,
Mr Peatfield, an independent chair of case conferences and case reviews, said
that staff were amazed when the Joint Review gave Haringey a glowing report.
Mr Peatfield said he thought the report was “inconsistent with the service to
families and children that one felt was being delivered, which was patchy and at
times not satisfactory, and one knew the staff were struggling, one knew there
were unallocated cases so it really appeared to be one of these sort of dislocations
that did not make any sense”. He continued, “I think workers were anxious that
the department was presenting a picture of managing its task which did not feel
to them to be real in terms of their struggle in performing the task.”
This Department of Health web page contains a link to the full Report
-
-
Clive, the very last thing I'm saying is that:
"the whole business of Baby P [was] largely a media-inspired storm-in-a-teacup plus witch-hunt.
The idea that anyone would describe the suffering and killing of Peter Connelly in those terms is deeply offensive and I would ask you to withdraw the remark.
Contributors to this thread raise serious issues. One is the difference between events surrounding the murder of Peter and earlier, of Victoria Climbié. In particular the aftermath in each case was different.
Victoria's death led to Lord Laming's Report and its recommendations. This in turn raised important questions about the responsibility and accountability of councillors; and of staff - both at the most senior and junior levels. None of this was trivial, storm-in-a-teacup stuff either.
If anyone wants clarity on some of these issues, I suggest an Observer article by Ian Willmore, a former Labour councillor and deputy Leader, and a personal friend of mine. Ian also expresses some of the anger, sorrow and shame we felt.
Clive, I'd previously read the paragraphs you quoted from Herbert Laming. I read carefully and thought hard about the whole report and the evidence it took. Anyone who has done both would realise the absurdity of writing that:"The culture did not change between 2003 and 2008.
For one thing there was a huge reorganisation: it simply was not the same Department.
A central feature of the Laming Inquiry is that it proceeded dispassionately. Facts were established; documents examined. Witnesses were questioned calmly and fairly. Many had their own barristers to help them put their case.
There was nothing calm and dispassionate and fair about the media treatment of Sharon Shoesmith. In her case, many people seem to object stridently to the very idea of fairness and balance. So her hard work and solid achievements for Haringey's Education Service become a most inconvenient truth.
It's undeniable that in child protection her department had crucial failings with terrible consequences. But this does not mean that Sharon Shoesmith should be a pariah - deserving of hatred and abuse.
The same applies to the other staff involved. For example, Community Care pointed out how the social worker, Maria Ward, was singled out by The Sun in 27 consecutive editions after the trial of Peter Connelly's killers."She was named 55 times, in 31 articles, editorials, opinion columns and readers' letters. [... ] Editorials labelled her "lazy" and "useless", while one story speculated on her mental health.
Community Care warned of the consequences:" . . some social workers have decided to stop practising and vacancy rates in London are approaching crisis levels. It is also likely to discourage bright students from entering the profession, undermining efforts to recruit much-needed social workers into children's services. Social work is one of the most high-pressure jobs and when there are not enough staff, team members are left to struggle with unreasonable workloads, leaving less time for each case. Ultimately, it is the children who will suffer."
(Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale. Former social worker.)
-
-
The idea that anyone would describe the suffering and killing of Peter Connelly in those terms is deeply offensive and I would ask you to withdraw the remark.
Alan, this is deeply disingenuous. Much of what you've been saying gives the impression of trying hard to distract attention from what should always be at the heart of this case, precisely, the suffering and killing of Peter Connelly and the preventing its repitition.
I would agree that there has been relatively too much focus on one individual (Sharon Shoesmith). Shoesmith was far from being alone in incompetence. But you probably wouldn't agree with the corollary, that relatively not enough focus has been directed on her political masters, to whom she was responsible and who set the tone, policy, direction and finances for Shoesmith's entire department. Also the persistence of the culture of incompetence, despite the departmental reorganisation. If the CS culture did not change between the two child killings, why do we see depressingly similar phenomena recorded?
You have mentioned George Orwell, Clay Sharky (again) and the play The Crucible. I don't know what other reading matter you have in mind to prescribe but I do know its not going to save another child's life on the At Risk Register. Is the mention of these things – entirely unrelated to either Peter Connelly or Victoria's deaths – intended to avoid more relevant issues?
Concentration on regrettable but second-order things like death threats against Shoesmith (for which I am not responsible and do not subscribe) has the appearance of distracting attention from chronic underlying problems at Haringey Childrens Services. Shoesmith was not responsible for the culture there: the culture of incompetence existed before Victoria's death. When Sharon Shoesmith joined Haringey, she may well have had to conform to the existing culture.
I happen to think that investigative journalism is immensely valuable. It is not good enough to complain about the media, none of which advocated death threats. It would be unfair to characterise your views as much ado about nothing, but criticising the messenger and blaming the messenger for concentrating on this issue, is not going to help anyone. It's a dishonest defence. Some people well remember the Climbie case.
The deaths of these children are extreme cases to be sure, but one can't help wondering what else is going on beneath the surface, ie. the cases that are not quite so bad and don't hit the headlines – and may be being suppressed. Part of the culture is cover-up and obessive secrecy, so there is reason to worry.
The media reporting of Sharon Shoesmith is now largely history. If you are re-elected, is there anything you hope to do to improve the poor culture in Chidlren's Services, recorded, as you say, dispassionately in one Public Enquiry? The media, about which you complain, might not have been so vociferous over Peter, had the Children's Secretary (Ed Balls) acceded to the calls for a Public Enquiry. Would you favour a public enquiry? Or would that just be giving in to the media? I agree with your often quoted remark about sunlight being the best disinfectant.
In the long run, social workers are likely to want to work where they have good support and leadership, properly resourced and not seen politically, as a low priority. Would you not agree? Until the majority group, which includes all majority group councillors, face up squarely to the chronically poor culture in this Cinderella department, there will be further cases.
-
Permalink Reply by perdeep on
-
I'm so sad to read the comments that focus on ‘poor Shoesmith’ for by doing so it minimises Shoesmith's responsibility for her Department's failure in protecting Peter. My greatest concern is that all this flooding of sorrow for Shoesmith has the hallmarks of a dysfunctional dynamic that creates and places failing professionals into the role of the top or real victims. It allows Peter to be forgotten – and a lovely mechanism of avoiding the pain these politicians should be feeling for a child who would not be dead if our services had been good enough.
I agree that the culture did not change after the death of Victoria and is unlikely to have unchanged because I think it is set by those we sadly elected who have a record in failing to hold senior officers to account. I would also say ( not that think to highly of Ofsted) that Ofsted found in its inspection following the death of Peter that Haringey had failed to implement to comply with some requirements of the Victoria Climbie inquiry.
As for the focus on Shoesmith by the media and us the public – not always nice I agree -but the devastating point is that she would never have accepted any responsibility and the Council would never have expected her to be held responsible (nor perhaps would Ed balls have) if there hadn’t been such an outcry. I suggest in future if Councillors feel a sense of duty towards their officers then they ensure that situation doesn’t arise whereby the Sun newspaper has to lead a campaign to get the right thing done. Haringey Council brought our Borough into shame- the media , we the public (everyone but the Council and its officers) understood the drip, drip phenomena- There must be more? And there was more. They are hiding something- and they were.
We need robust accountability of officers/ services, transparency not an entrenched culture of secrecy, minimisation and denial that mirrors abusive parents. I welcome the other political parties call for serious case reviews to be fully published.
Well, another quote comes to mind:
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the
myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion
without the discomfort of thought. (John F. Kennedy)
So, perhaps politicians should try the discomfort of thought- you failed Victoria and you failed Peter.
-
-
Regent's Park Open Air Theatre is staging Arthur Miller's The Crucible until 19 June.
(To declare an indirect interest: a family friend, Ellie Paskell, is in the cast.)
-
Permalink Reply by Sandi on
-
"I SAW GOODY PROCTOR WITH THE DEVIL!!!"
Thanks for the heads up on this Alan, love this play. Will try and get along and see it.
Sandi
-
-
I mentioned The Crucible in relation to the events with Sharon Shoesmith. As Perdeep quoted - though perhaps with an interpretation different to mine - "Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
We went last Saturday. An amazing play. And particularly effective in the open air, with June light slowly fading as hope also fades. But Miller also suggests that some people will learn and grow; and find courage and the 'discomfort of thought'.
Despite a baying crowd.
Take a blanket and an umbrella. (Though we heard some of the best performances have been in rain.) Stand-by tickets available to concessions.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
