Cobblers?

[Serial_Apologist]

I listened to Sharon Shoesmith being interviewed by the rottweiler on Today this morning - admittedly in a half-awake state - and still don't know what to make of this whole matter.

Without straying into potentially actionable territory, what do others think?

S-A

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it would have been far better for her dismissal not to have had the political knee jerk appearance; mature reflection, due process and delivered reports would have been far more potent in establishing disapproval and accountability .... as it is i would guess the way she was treated would diminish the required improvements prospects of success and strengthened feelings of victim-hood amongst the professionals rather than acknowledgement of insufficiencies ... Balls was grabbing headlines and trying to appear tough ..... a mess in a word even now .... all he achieved was to make hiding behind tick boxes and rigid processes much more likely and intelligent professionalism much less so ... and we now can not know with any certainty how certain the knowledge gained is since it was clearly part of a fast fix ... she may well have been negligent, or equally, actually competent, badly resourced and starved of budget, just plain unlucky [no system will ever catch them all] or badly served by her staff or whatever ... who can one now believe about this ...[not Mr Balls i think ...]

[Lateralthinking1]

I don't like her. The picture of her having a day at the races when the matter arose. The certainty that she was utterly blameless. Equally, the dismissal by Balls was crass. If ever there was a situation asking for investigation into the grey areas, it was this one.

Humphreys was a disaster area this morning. Apparently Stephen Fry, another individual I don't like, is pictured with Gaga in the Financial Times today. He is quoted as saying that money doesn't matter to him. The only thing he enjoyed with it was buying his father a heart valve and his parents a Rolls Royce. As this was being read out on the programme, Humphreys blurted "wonder which one cost the most". Cue his co-presenter trying to shut him up as quickly as possible.

[Serial_Apologist]

She was put in place in response to the Climbie affair in the same borough. Balls reacted in haste after being put on the spot by Cameron. The coalition now takes the same line as Balls, and no doubt there will be an appeal against her exoneration based on the issue of personal culpability. All this is predated by decades, literally, of underfunding of social work. Ms Shoesmith has had backing from previous staff she's worked with in other departments, though I'm not sure about in this case.

[Lateralthinking1]

In fairness, I have just read her comments and she comes across better than I had expected. As for politicians, I believe that because so many of them are immature, and so frequently absent, they often have little understanding of children.

It seems to me that there should be far more emphasis on support for the social services and more training for those involved to enable them to consider cases with a greater subtlety.

Largely because that is lacking, there is over-reaction elsewhere. As you say, political knee-jerk reactions and indeed the most ridiculous way that CRB etc has invaded the culture.

They are doing a children's poetry competition on the Chris Evans programme. On Feedback on Radio 4, a delighted producer explained that they had no idea that they would get 30,000 responses. We needed, she said, to get a big team in place quickly and obviously they were all CRB checked.

At that point, I have to say that I rolled my eyes to the ceiling. All the concern about the very tiny minority of people who may have a criminal illness is a projection of the uneasiness of parents who are effectively strangers to their own kids. Though they won't admit it, they feel that they are hurting them in some way.

[Mahlerei]

What puzzles me is that there is very little sign of contrition on her part, given that this appalling tragedy unfolded on her watch. As the person in charge it seems only right that she should take the fall; it's called accountability. Now she's supposedly in line for a pay-out of £500,000, which hardly seems right. But if you preside over something like this or you're a bonker too busy banking one of your colleagues to notice your business is going down the pan you're in line for a tidy little sum. Bizarre.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think the other thing to mention is those with money can go to the law. For those without money, the legal system is increasingly becoming as remote as North Korea.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... and a sight more dangerous Lat

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

this short news report on the BBC News site helps to recall the events and makes clear the political fix require by BROON and his pit bull Balls ....

[Stunsworth]

She should have done the decent thing and resigned. She was in charge, she should have carried the can. My first thought is that if the 'proper' procedures had been followed she would have been fired.

[Mahlerei]

Quite. But as she doesn't 'do blame' that was never going to happen was it?

[LeMartinPecheur]

From CDJ's short BBC report: "Ed Balls is now paying the price for an unlawful and unfair decision taken two and a half years ago in the haste to close down the controversy over Baby Peter."

Odd use of words when it's Haringey that pays the 'price', not Balls at all. Unless there's a real risk that he's now lost all political credibilty as a result - shurely not, he was just doing the will of thur people

Odd how social services seem to be blamed 100% if not more for these tragedies. I'm not aware that they've ever beaten any kid into pulp etc etc. The people responsible are surely the doers, not those who failed to stop the doers, which is all the rest of us. If we want to blame someone else, it would be a deep dig into the causers of poverty, dismal housing conditions, rootless society/ community, poor education etc etc.

Which is probably all of us all over again

[vinteuil]

Quite. But as she doesn't 'do blame' that was never going to happen was it?

... yes, that was an extraordinary statement of hers, wasn't it? -"I don't do blame..." What is that supposed to mean? - 'Nothing's my fault'?

Presentationally, I can't say it was a well chosen phrase...

[Serial_Apologist]

... yes, that was an extraordinary statement of hers, wasn't it? -"I don't do blame..." What is that supposed to mean? - 'Nothing's my fault'?

Presentationally, I can't say it was a well chosen phrase...

I interpreted her as meaning she disagreed with blame culture, and therefore didn't attribute it to anyone - not least herself!

[Lateralthinking1]

I have watched the interview now. Two further things.

First, is this not yet another case of politicians ignoring established procedures (think Parliamentary expenses) and adding to the taxpayer bill in the process?

Secondly, she does, I think, make a valid point about the sad numbers of deaths to children each year and how, if there were to be a resignation each time, a third of Directors would have to go annually.

But the question of accountability follows and it seems to me that this is a highly appropriate place to begin to look seriously at senior managers' salaries.

Just as bankers were paid huge amounts for taking risks that were proved with the public bailout not to be risks to them personally, so we are paying very large salaries to public officials for having a personal accountability that in practice is almost impossible to define or apply.

We should reduce most higher salaries by at least a third in the light of this obvious discrepancy.