Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sharon Shoesmith to give advice on child safety
"A row erupted today over a decision to invite the disgraced former head of social services at the heart of the Baby P scandal to give advice to MPs on child safety."
Article in the Evening Standard
Labour MP Gloria De Piero said: “It beggars belief. This is an insult to Baby P.” Another Labour MP, Michael Dugher, said: “Wouldn't it make more sense to have people who do a brilliant job in child protection like Barnado's or the NSPCC?”
.
Article in the Evening Standard
Labour MP Gloria De Piero said: “It beggars belief. This is an insult to Baby P.” Another Labour MP, Michael Dugher, said: “Wouldn't it make more sense to have people who do a brilliant job in child protection like Barnado's or the NSPCC?”
.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley Ramm on
-
Have already replied to Ham+High Broadway via Twitter about this unbelievable decision (Without being libelous i am at a loss for words. What can she possibly say that would be helpful? A very strange decision). Who on earth would want the opinion or input of the woman who either did not know or covered up what was happening in Haringey Social Services over this truly appalling case of neglect and worse? what credibility will anything she says have? I cannot think what has possessed the people who have made this decision. Gives me no faith in how seriously the government takes the care of children. Frightening.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Clive and Lesley, I can't see what the fuss is about.
The meeting yesterday was that of a Select Committee going about their ordinary Commons business of scrutinising or assessing Government policy/performance, in this case on Child Safeguarding.
Sharon Shoesmith was just one of four or five experts (= professionals with specific experience) invited to give individual evidence. The Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, was another. They are not members of a permanent panel devising Coalition policy in this area.
There are many Haringey teachers (including headteachers of Infants and Juniors) and probably parents who would see Sharon Shoesmith as a right and proper person to attend a select committee on this matter.
Kiran Randhawa's article (Evening Standard/Daily Mail, wha'ever) and the couple of predictable MPs quoted don't seem to rise much above the stream of comments which follow.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
OAE: do you really think that SS is an expert professional with relevant specific experience in child safeguarding? Social work is a distinct discipline. I understood her background was in teaching and that she had been a school inspector. BBC profile here.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Pilots who crash planes are a fantastic source of information, often posthumously via their black box recorders.
-
-
Interesting. The aviation industry has the highest standards in transport and arguably, anywhere. One of the things about them – possibly unique – is their response to major failures. There is only one imperative: to get to the truth so that flying is even safer in future.
It seems common sense really. In particular, this means that there is a no-blame culture that encourages those who may have had some involvement or responsibility to come forward and tell all they know: for everyone's sake. The culture seems quite different in the field of child protection and even the present government has decided against a public enquiry into the failures over baby Peter Connelly. What hope is there?
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Yes John, but if they cracsh the plane simply because they're not very good pilots, then I doubt they'd be invited to neither fly or speak about safety. SS got sacked for being rubbish. Just saying..
-
-
Shoesmith speaks
-
-
I was upset that shoesmith used the questions to stage a publicity coup for herself instead of answering simple straightforward questions. Her glib self congratulatory manner abhorred me.
-
-
The former teacher and school inspector, Ms Shoesmith, as Head of Education, was prepared to accept the additional title of Head of Childrens Services. I do not know if that extra responsibility came with extra emolument. But she appears to have had no special qualifications for the extra role.
The Baby P case seems remote for her:
"Haringey had 55,000 children, 600 of them in care. We had 250 children subjected to child protection plans and I would not have known the case."
It would be unreasonable for her to know the details of each case. But might it be reasonable to expect her to have set up good systems and procedures – and ensure the right personel were in place – in order to maximse the chances of those children on the Child Protection Register, actually being protected?
Insufficient accountability and responsibility were themes of the Public Enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié.
Once again, Harry Truman's little sign "the buck stops here" might have helped.
-
-
Alan: a project manager friend of mine, who introduced me to this area (in the field of engineering disasters) was careful to distinguish between blame and responsibility.
A no-blame culture does not mean a no-responsibility culture, indeed it means the opposite. The removal of blame (eg. penalties, prosecution and opprobrium) from the picture is intended to encourage people to come forward and accept responsibility. Unfortunately, with Haringey Child Protection, we have neither.
Ms Shoesmith did not kill Peter and we have to believe that she did not want to see this happen. But she has spent most of her words putting distance between the Child Protection Register and her responsibility as head of Childrens' Services.
Whatever culture exists at Haringey Childrens Services, it is clear that it did not change for the better between the deaths of Victoria and Peter.
And confidence will only be restored when it is seen that the culture (including secrecy, coercion and cover-up) has changed.
-
-
There's another point I'd make about the culture within LBH Childrens' Services. John raised the interesting comparison of the aviation industry and their [normal] response to accidents.
I think there is one key difference: the normal general standards in aviation are exceptionally high and on a passenger mile basis, accidents are incredibly rare. It is the safest form of transport. The repeated safety instructions become tedious when we know the chances of needing to put them into practice are so slight.
When there is an accident it is wholly exceptional to the norm, it stands out, it's harder to hide and it brings with it great attention, from the press, the airline, the plane manufacturer and from aviation authorities. As John points out, black boxes exist to help learn and the results are published. Flying becomes even slightly safer with each crash. Everything is geared to avoid repeating the same mistake.
How much more difficult it must be to get to the bottom of a particular problem in Childrens' Services, let alone get a no-blame culture – when much of the department is a shambles – and that is the normal operating condition. Where there is secrecy, cover-ups, threats, intimidation, vindictiveness. Threats of sackings for talking to the press. Notices instructing staff not to talk to the police. A general lack of care, probably not at the coal-face, but more amongst the managers who set the rules and the tone.
The installation of a no-blame culture probably requires root and branch reform which won't happen because the political will is not there.
-
-
Ms Shoesmith cannot bear all the responsibility, even for her own failings. Someone or some institution chose to employ her in the first place and to promote her, when clearly she had no particular skills or experience in Social or Childrens' Services. Like other senior employees in the local council, she probably did meet one criterion that has long been important to them: the ability to repeat politically correctly shibboleths.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
