Sharon Shoesmith gets £600,000

DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Another Balls up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On Newsnight now. Sharon Shoesmith (baby P case, head of children services, Harringay) is to get £600,000 because Ed Balls jumped the gun in announcing she would be sacked.
«1345

Comments

  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another Balls up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    On Newsnight now. Sharon Shoesmith (baby P case, head of children services, Harringay) is to get £600,000 because Ed Balls jumped the gun in announcing she would be sacked.

    It is normal for execs, public or private sector, to get a pay off if their fired, part of the total corruption of our establishment.
  • DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    It is normal for execs, public or private sector, to get a pay off if their fired, part of the total corruption of our establishment.

    yes but is it normal for them to get so much because the then Children's Minister thought he was above the law, which is what part of the payment is for in this case
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yet the judge ruled the minimum payment should be 3 months salary (£33,000) plus pension contributions. Presumably she had some dirt to dish as the agreement includes a gagging clause.
  • johnny_boi_UKjohnny_boi_UK Posts: 3,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    It is normal for execs, public or private sector, to get a pay off if their fired, part of the total corruption of our establishment.

    Yes, but not that much!
  • paul2307paul2307 Posts: 8,079
    Forum Member
    Why does this country keep rewarding people for failure :confused:
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ministers have to follow the law just like everyone else, and if they don't it's fair that they're held to account for it.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aneechik wrote: »
    Ministers have to follow the law just like everyone else, and if they don't it's fair that they're held to account for it.

    So the minister should be given the bill.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    paul2307 wrote: »
    Why does this country keep rewarding people for failure :confused:

    It's people at the top looking after each other, at our expense.
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, but not that much!

    Average pay off to HBOS execs when it had to be rescued was nearly a million, Goodwin at RBS got 20 million, so maybe Ms Shoesmith feels hard done by.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    So the minister should be given the bill.

    The company he works for will be given the bill. Just like everyone else in a similar position.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
    Forum Member
    Another Balls up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    On Newsnight now. Sharon Shoesmith (baby P case, head of children services, Harringay) is to get £600,000 because Ed Balls jumped the gun in announcing she would be sacked.

    He wasn't alone in that decision. The country was outraged at what happened to that wee boy. The Ofsted report was damning at what had been going on in the department run by Shoesmith.
    The real balls-up was it happened and there lies the real tragedy in all this and that's the one that you really should be jumping on rather than try to score a cheap political shot at Balls.

    She got £600,000 for unfair dismissal - I hope she enjoys it because it's cheap at the price if it stopped it happening to another child.

    So what do you think Ed Balls should have done - at the time?

    http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/ofsted-response-outcome-of-sharon-shoesmith-judicial-review-appeal
  • Rowan HedgeRowan Hedge Posts: 3,861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another Balls up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    On Newsnight now. Sharon Shoesmith (baby P case, head of children services, Harringay) is to get £600,000 because Ed Balls jumped the gun in announcing she would be sacked.

    I hope that vile woman chokes on it,:mad:

    Time the govt ect told her to frig off and ignore the ruling on paying blood money to that scumbag.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,804
    Forum Member
    canny man wrote: »

    Asked how when they knew about the death of Baby P OFSTED in 2007 wrote a glowing report, including...
    In the October 2007 report, inspectors congratulated Ms Shoesmith's department for improving "the life chances" of children and working with police to tackle domestic violence.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    If only you could rely on the voters to show their disgust at their council's generosity with taxpayers money.:rolleyes:
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If Haringey hadn't given in to Balls, and I know that would have been risky for them as he could have taken over the department, they could have probably paid her off for about £100,000. They've instead lost half a million over this.
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    Who thought Balls would be a good children's secretary?
  • gregrichardsgregrichards Posts: 4,913
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is absolutely disgusting a little boy was brutally murdered on her watch and she gets rewarded 600 grand for it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    paul2307 wrote: »
    Why does this country keep rewarding people for failure :confused:
    Go Figure..... Mr John McFall, chair of the Treasury Select Committee was clearly asleep on the proverbial job when Gordon "Mr Casino Banker" Brown was Chancellor, the Treasury Select Committee failing in its task to scrutinise the Treasury and rein in the prolifgate Casino Banker, and after the 2010 General Election, was promoted to the House of Lords.

    And, of course, Ed Balls became opposition chancellor after former postman, Alan Johnson, resigned from the post of Opposition Chancellor.
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Another Balls up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    On Newsnight now. Sharon Shoesmith (baby P case, head of children services, Harringay) is to get £600,000 because Ed Balls jumped the gun in announcing she would be sacked.

    The balls up is yours. She received an undisclosed amount and both parties are forbidden to reveal the amount of the award.

    Like it or not she was awarded the amount by a law court.
  • SuperwombleSuperwomble Posts: 4,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    It's people at the top looking after each other, at our expense.

    Absolutely correct. State funded lawyers, judges and other state funded officials using the state funded courts to award a state funded brother or sister state funds for making a state funded cockup in which the state failed to protect a vulnerable small child despite the fact that there were loads of state funded employees and managers that were being paid to do just that.

    And this is just one case.

    No wonder we have no state funds left.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    Who thought Balls would be a good children's secretary?

    The same buffoons/his mates in govt who thought it was a good idea to merge education & children's social services in the first place which resulted in people like Shoesmith (whose background was in in education not as a social worker) being in charge in the first place.

    Whilst the reverse (former social workers being responsible for primarily educational issues) was happening elsewhere as depts. were merged.

    A policy whilst theoretically sensible they were strongly warned had the potential for disaster for all sorts of reasons. And over which I know for a fact many senior/experienced professional across the country and in Whitehall got themselves the hell out...before they found themselves responsible for work/policy areas & management in which they had absolutely no expertise or experience.

    And once you know Shoesmith was a former headteacher with considerable expertise in special needs education (who incidentally was recognised for improving schools in Haringey) perhaps a lot begins to make sense...not least the probably assumption that she was never ever directly anywhere near the case of Baby P.

    That the professional supervision and most senior social work expertise of his case was actually sitting with someone else in that department. I know for a fact that the answer to these botched together children's services departments was always going to be that if the head was an educationalist, the deputy would have to have the social work background and vice versa.

    It doesn't make what happened excusable but people should be aware of some of the background to the situation...which btw still prevails to this day.

    Blaming her directly for what happened was a bit like appointing a fireman as chief constable and then being a bit surprised when crime levels rise.
  • JELLIES0JELLIES0 Posts: 6,709
    Forum Member
    canny man wrote: »
    He wasn't alone in that decision. The country was outraged at what happened to that wee boy. The Ofsted report was damning at what had been going on in the department run by Shoesmith.
    The real balls-up was it happened and there lies the real tragedy in all this and that's the one that you really should be jumping on rather than try to score a cheap political shot at Balls.

    She got £600,000 for unfair dismissal - I hope she enjoys it because it's cheap at the price if it stopped it happening to another child.

    So what do you think Ed Balls should have done - at the time?

    http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/ofsted-response-outcome-of-sharon-shoesmith-judicial-review-appeal

    He should have followed the procedures set up by a previous Labour government.

    It was rather irresponsible of him to showboat by announcing on the telly that Shoesmith would be sacked, when his party were the very ones who had removed that option from employers.
  • CaxtonCaxton Posts: 28,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    Who thought Balls would be a good children's secretary?

    Who though Balls would be good at anything except being a Minister for Gurning perhaps.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    It's people at the top looking after each other, at our expense.

    No it's not. It's the law at work and I would imagine nobody gave this money to Sharon Shoesmith - on the contrary she probably had to fight for it every inch of the way. That's not in any way a comment in support of her btw.

    There are two issues here. One - the concept that remuneration is acceptable in cases where negligence has resulted in dismissal. Second, that a Government minister can ignore standard legal procedure and bow to the baying mob in what appears to be little more than an effort to save face.

    As others have pointed out - a balls-up.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    Yet the judge ruled the minimum payment should be 3 months salary (£33,000) plus pension contributions. Presumably she had some dirt to dish as the agreement includes a gagging clause.

    I'm thinking that someone higher than her was lazy with the Baby P case and that she, even though she's not innocent either, was put in the firing line. This might be where the gagging order comes in.
Sign In or Register to comment.