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 McMullan on
-
Nope, you must be wrong. Gina was Mayor from 2006-2007 and they would not have rewarded her with that if they thought she was at all accountable for Victoria Climbie's death.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Well John, perhaps you can link me to an answer to this mystery, because on page 5 of this pdf attached, regarding Lord Lamming's report from Southampton Council, a certain Cllr. Gina Adamou is mentioned as Clive said a few posts ago.
The most swingeing criticism, however, is reserved for senior managers:
Haringey managers such as Gurbux Singh, Mary Richardson and Chief
Executive Gareth Daniel, as well as Cllr Gina Adamou are identified as
deserving particular criticism:
Haringey Council certainly wouldn't reward someone after such criticism with the post of mayor would they? Or would they?
Is there more than one Cllr. Gina Adamou on Haringey council? We, the voters, deserve to know - Attachments:
-
-
20030630_008pdf.pdf, 28 KB
-
-
-
Flabbergasted again.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Mayor is a ceremonial post awarded on the basis of Buggins' turn. You propose this as a test of culpability for conduct leading to death on the Council Child Protection Register, something for which you have now twice said you not know its purpose?
"... if they thought ..." Cllr. Adamou's colleagues would have every bit as much the same incentive not to find any of their political party colleagues accountable: its a collective unaccountabiity. If one of their colleagues could be held responsible for something, then they could be next.
. -
-
-
OK, I have educated myself. From this Wikipedia entry about the death of Victoria Climbie it states that a Child Protection Register is a list of children believed to be at risk which is maintained by the local authority.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
My comment, Clive, was not intended to soothe. Nor to suggest anyone should tolerate poor performance. There are justified criticisms of Sharon Shoesmith. But my comment was about her unfair and unjustified demonisation.
I also made a practical point. I assume all of us want dedicated experienced professionals to protect children at risk - doctors, nurses, health visitors, police officers, social workers, nursery staff, teachers and many others. We also know that, even with their very best efforts and most careful judgements, sometimes they will fail.
Is promising a torrent of public hatred and abuse really the best way to recruit and retain these staff?
(Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale. And former social worker.)
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Ms Shoesmith could have avoided the torrent of "public hatred and abuse" by resigning - the only honourable course of action in the circumstances. She would thereby have saved her underlings from sharing that public abuse and hatred.
She was head of, and responsible for the efficient running of, a department which by all acounts was performing poorly. She therefore was not up to doing her job and should have recognised this and resigned even before a child in her care died.
-
-
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". In a number of respects - for example, schools' performance - it was performing reasonably well. That was certainly the view of a number of headteachers who expressed public support for Sharon Shoesmith. At the time OFSTED also took a positive view of Haringey.
Unlike many of the people now commenting on events, Sharon Shoesmith did not have the benefit of hindsight. In particular, there was a significant factor which none of the people centrally involved grasped at the time. And that is the impact of social media websites. These multiplied and amplified the impact of the news and people's appalled reaction to the news as events unfolded - especially as reported in The Sun.
At the time I tentatively tried to make sense of this and suggested to my colleagues what I thought was happening. (As usual, Professor Clay Shirky's insights helped me put the pieces together more clearly - but only months later.) Sharon Shoesmith herself didn't grasp the impact until her daughters told her - for example, about the Facebook groups which had been set up.
Ita O'Donovan then Chief Executive was miles wide of the mark when she talked about "a 24 hour news culture". Because we already had that during Lord Laming's Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié. That was not the key factor.
As you may recall, that Inquiry went on for months, was an ongoing national news story, and fully reported. Every night there were transcripts available on the Inquiry's website. I went several times. I also read each day's transcripts. They are an astonishing detailed record of the internal (mal)functioning of, I think seven or eight, different public bodies. (Fortunately, they are still available - but now in the National Archives.)
Of course, there were probably other reasons why the spotlight fell on Sharon Shoesmith. One is that, to protect siblings, the courts ordered a ban on identifying "Baby Peter", his mother Tracey Connelly, Steven Barker and Jason Owen. So for months, Sharon Shoesmith was the face-in-the-media. This didn't happen with Victoria. Her photos were used; and her great aunt Marie-Thérèse Kouao and Carl Manning were identified.
Could Sharon Shoesmith have "saved" her more junior colleagues from being abused and vilified? Perhaps, John, you mean by publicly confessing her guilt and offering herself up as a scapegoat? I doubt it. Consider, for example, that some of the people named as hate figures on websites were just administrative staff in Haringey - nothing at all to do with Children's Services. Sharon Shoesmith's sacking did stop them being abused; her resignation was unlikely to have done so.
Can I suggest you may like to reread Arthur Miller's play The Crucible.
Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale.)
-
-
Alan, from what I remember, and memory is a fickle jade, the OFSTED positive view was based on a self-certifying box-ticking check by Haringey Children’s Services, and not on any recent rigorous inspection. Following Peter’s death, the independent report by OFSTED, the Healthcare Commission and the Police Inspectorate was said to have found "a failure to talk directly to children at risk" and a "catalogue of failures". They included agencies not coordinating their work with each other and "inconsistent management".
This aside, Councillors Meehan and Santry felt it right to resign over the findings of the report
Mr Meehan said: "The reasons for my resignation are matters of personal honour and local responsibility. I am acutely aware of my accountability to people in Haringey.”
Ms Santry said: "I am the accountable lead member and I accept that accountability and take my full share of responsibility. “
Ms Shoesmith did not acknowledge that accountability and responsibility .
As for "The Crucible", wasn’t the point that there was, in fact, no witchcraft ? But Peter did die, and the independent report did identify failings within the Child Protection Service.
-
-
No the point of the Crucible was that there was a witch hunt. Nobody believed in witches in 1953.
Ms Shoesmith did not acknowledge that accountability and responsibility .
She was a civil servant, she was not accountable she may have been responsible. There is a difference.
-
-
It was an allegory on the McCarthy era. They believed in Communists in 1953 :-)
-
-
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)
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
