Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey whistleblower loses victimisation claim
A whistle-blower who warned the government that child protection measures were not being followed in Haringey LBC six months before the death of Baby P has lost her claim of victimisation against the council.
Nevres Kemal, 45, brought the claim after her application for a job as a social worker with the north London council was refused last year.
She said she felt victimised for blowing the whistle, but Watford Employment Tribunal rejected her case, saying her claims of "public interest disclosure detriment" were "not well-founded", the tribunals service said.
No further reasons were given in the judgement, which was handed down last week following three days of hearings behind closed doors in June and July.
Ms Kemal alerted the government about the poor quality of Haringey social services in February 2007, six months before 17-month-old Peter Connelly's death in August.
She later made a claim against the council after being sacked, but on that occasion a settlement was reached without any admission of liability.
Ms Kemal brought the second claim after being refused an interview for a social worker's post with the council last year.
Today, a council spokeswoman said: "We welcome the tribunal’s decision to dismiss Ms Kemal's claims against Haringey Council.
"Our focus remains on ensuring that the improvements we are making to our children's service continue apace."
Nevres Kemal, 45, brought the claim after her application for a job as a social worker with the north London council was refused last year.
She said she felt victimised for blowing the whistle, but Watford Employment Tribunal rejected her case, saying her claims of "public interest disclosure detriment" were "not well-founded", the tribunals service said.
No further reasons were given in the judgement, which was handed down last week following three days of hearings behind closed doors in June and July.
Ms Kemal alerted the government about the poor quality of Haringey social services in February 2007, six months before 17-month-old Peter Connelly's death in August.
She later made a claim against the council after being sacked, but on that occasion a settlement was reached without any admission of liability.
Ms Kemal brought the second claim after being refused an interview for a social worker's post with the council last year.
Today, a council spokeswoman said: "We welcome the tribunal’s decision to dismiss Ms Kemal's claims against Haringey Council.
"Our focus remains on ensuring that the improvements we are making to our children's service continue apace."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
The new government appears to have agreed with the last one, that there is no need for public enquiry into the Baby P case. Now an employment tribunal rejects a key whistle blower's claim against Haringey Council. Do either of these things restore public confidence in Haringey Childrens' Services?
-
Permalink Reply by Julie on
-
Is it possible, perhaps, that a public enquiry isn't needed? Or that Ms Kemal wasn't victimised by the council? Maybe she really didn't have a case. No conspiracy, no miscarriage of justice, just a disgruntled former employee with no grounds for financial redress.
Wasn't she a Lib Dem candidate in the last local election?
-
-
Julie, do you think that a public enquiry was needed in the wake of the death of Victoria Climbie? As a member of the public, are you confident that all is well with Haringey Childrens' Services?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, do you think there's just a teensy-weensy possibility that, after sitting and listening to the evidence for three days, Watford Employment Tribunal might have reached a fair and accurate decision?
-
-
Alan, you might possibly agree that there is a wider context to an Employment Tribunal Hearing, indeed the context goes back at least to 2003. It is possible to look at the Hearing in isolation and it is possible that they reached a fair and accurate decision. But even if one accepts that, do you think that there exists confidence in Haringey Childrens' Services? It was Nevres Kemal who blew the whistle on practices there and she has paid a price. You will recall the Baby P case and you will probably remember there was a public enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie.
Two governments have declined to hold a second public enquiry into remarkably similar circumstances in the same council department, but it does not follow that all is well in that department.
We can only speculate why there has not been another inquiry but it surely cannot be due to lack of concern by the government. It was after all, a Labour Government which called for the removal of the council leader and the lead member for Childrens' Services. Another public enquiry may have been decided against due to a combination of cost and the sense that another inquiry, coming only a few years after the first, might have a long-term demoralising effect for the department.
I for one am not convinced that lessons have been learnt.
-
Permalink Reply by melanie allen on
-
I feel sorry for this lady but at the same time saddened to think that children are probably still suffering in our borough! Harringey council do not appreciate whistle blowers and actually warn new employees of this? this is obviously why certain departments have failings which are ignored as people are afraid of loosing their jobs.
-
-
My understanding is that she was first sacked, and then took an ET case for unfair dismissal. While fighting this case she publicly criticised Haringey Council for the quality of the work in their children's social services department. This was during the period of time when the death of Baby Peter, eighteen months earlier, was coming to the attention of the public. Had she been a whistleblower, she would have been able to remain in employment and be protected under Haringey's whistle-blowing policy and the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
I understand she did not raise her concerns when she was working for Haringey, but after dismissal. The council settled out of court, possibly to avoid going to ET, or maybe because they felt the case would attract more adverse publicity, at a time when they were desperately trying to recruit. Ms Kemal accepted the settlement.
I'm sure Clive Carter will correct any errors in chronology but the sequence of events is very important.
At the moment, only one side of the story is in circulation. The council has its hands tied, to some extent when responding to press enquiries about an individual.
-
-
Last year I listened to the interview with Nevres Kemal on Radio 4 "The Choice" and I was struck by her commitment to the welfare of children. This seemed to be her overriding passion, so much so she was prepared to put her job on the line over it. Most bosses don't like whistle blowers. Most of the public would regard her as a genuine whistle blower, but I doubt that that is the way her bosses saw her in Haringey Childrens Services.
I think it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that all is well in Haringey Childrens' Services on the basis that she has lost her claim for victimisation.
A public enquiry *might* have led to more public confidence in this important department; as things stand, the reasons for the failings to protect this most vulnerable citizen (baby Peter) will remain shrouded.
The case of Baby P attracted a great amount of media coverage and some of it was overexcited. Only a public enquiry would have enabled all the facts to come out in an objective and dispassionate way, with recommendations as how to improve matters.
There would have been no guarantee of improvement, just as the Victoria Climbie Enquiry did not lead to lasting improvement, but at least there might have been a chance. There is no reason to suppose the internal culture has changed for the better. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Until real cleansing is done, there could be another case, regrettably. -
-
-
She was a Lib-Dem candidate in Noel Park ward and got 1616 votes. On her nomination form she was entered as a resident of Enfield.
-
-
I am surprised you say the hearings were held "behind closed doors": do you have chapter and verse for this, because Employment Tribunal cases are usually heard in public; and I'm told that this one was.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
