We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 225 comments are related to the topic:
Shoesmith awarded £680,000
Shoesmith awarded £680,000
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 225
|
By:
Still not answering my question.
Should, IN YOUR OPINION, Ed Balls have sacked her or not? |
|
By:
Did she deserve Balls sacking?
|
|
By:
If she was unfairly dismissed and unfairly scapegoated what do you think.
 Incredible that most tend side with the populist Ed Balls on this. |
|
By:
I agree with Wesdaq - Try my best is wrong in almost every comment.
|
|
By:
Ed Balls should be sued for the entire costs of this case
|
|
By:
^ Exactly
|
|
By:
This has nothing to do with Ed Balls - Most people aren't siding with him.
What most people are doing is seeing the horrible treatment and tragic death of a small child and the person paid a very good salary to run the department which oversees the avoidance of such a tragedy taking advantage of it. In the opinion of many people she wasn't 'scapegoated' she should have taken the responsibility for which she was being paid. In many opinions she should have been incarcerated for sheer ineptitude. Anyway, a simple question, still not properly answered.... Should Ed Balls have sacked her or not? Your answer seems to be, NOT. In most people's opinion, you're wrong. |
|
By:
Not in the opinion of judges who are not swayed by populist politicians and journalists just looking for an obvious scapegoat.
|
|
By:
Yep, Judges.
Infallible the lot of them. |
|
By:
Yes,infallible to knee-jerk politicians and mob rule.
|
|
By:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53024000/jpg/_53024849_012082633-1.jpg. Let's not forget. God bless you young man
|
|
By:
IN YOUR OPINION - forget your hatred of Ed Balls for a minute wesdag.
Was Shoesmith in any way culpable for the failings of her department? It's a simple question. Put another way. Should she have been sacked? IN YOUR OPINION. |
|
By:
she should of been sacked,
but because balls did it in an incorrect manner, she kops a small fortune,well i hope the b1tch enjoys spending it! surely only in britain can its type of nonsense happen. how does she sleep at night? |
|
By:
Why should I hate Ed Balls?
Such assertions undermines your argument. |
|
By:
Why can't you just answer a question I've now asked you 4 times?
|
|
By:
wesdaq
you're not northernlad or Menelaus are you? |
|
By:
Was Shoesmith in any way culpable for the failings of her department?
Absolutely, she got paid to run the department so she's ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in it. |
|
By:
So was she responsible for the doctors who failed to see the boy had multiple injuries and therefore failed to alert social services?
|
|
By:
The paediatrician, whose contract was terminated by the hospital, is now banned from working with children unsupervised and faces a General Medical Council investigation.
A total of 19 doctors and health workers examined Baby P on a total of 33 occasions in the eight months before his death. Three of the doctors raised concerns with police that his injuries appeared to be "non-accidental", but the Crown Prosecution Service, which had received a report from Haringey social services supporting the boy's mother, decided there was not enough evidence to charge her |
|
By:
Peter Connelly
Baby P, was a 17-month-old English boy who died in London after suffering more than fifty injuries over an eight- month period, during which he was repeatedly seen by Haringey Children's services and NHS health professionals. Baby P's real first name was revealed as "Peter" on the conclusion of a subsequent trial of Peter's mother's boyfriend on a charge of raping a two-year-old. His full identity was revealed when his killers were named after the expiry of a court anonymity order on 10 August 2009. The DES, now the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), was sent a letter in February 2007 (six months before the death of Baby P), containing an allegation that child protection procedures were not being followed in Haringey, from a lawyer acting for a former social worker, who sent the letter to the then health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, who merely forwarded the letter on to the DCSF. Haringey Council then took out an injunction against the social worker, Nevres Kemal, banning her from speaking about child care in Haringey. Kemal's lawyer stated: "Hewitt bounced us onto the DES... the DES then advised us to write to the Commission for Social Care Inspection whom we had written to on the same day as we had written to Hewitt, copying in the letter to Hewitt and the relevant material. By that time of course they had an injunction against us so we couldn't go back to the inspectorate. The inspectorate had been properly advised at the time and had done nothing.” |
|
By:
Get your facts right wes
|
|
By:
Wesdag.
Should she, IN YOUR opinion, have been sacked? |
|
By:
And once the appeal court was made fully aware of all the facts, she won her case.
|
|
By:
I'll leave you all to seethe.
I'm done with this thread. |
|
By:
You're just trolling
|
|
By:
The truth hurts doesn't it.
|
|
By:
The fact remains, she won her case and you just can not accept it and move on.
You try to make out as if she's Myra Hindley. |
|
By:
The doctors raised concerns and she did **** all about it. Fact. Instead she supported the vile creature that was his mother.
|
|
By:
Best to ignore the troll that is Wesdag.
|
|
By:
Sticks and stones, grow up ffs.
|
|
By:
Wesdag.
Why can you not answer a simple question? Are you after a little "sigh of appreciation" for the ridiculous fishing? 'cos you ain't getting one. |
|
By:
Everybody has a right to an opinion and I have no problem with that but the guy is simply plain wrong
|
|
By:
Last time, see if you can be grown up enough to answer it.
In your opinion.... Should Shoesmith have been sacked? Just Yes or No. |
|
By:
Try My Best, if you are someone who opposes employment legislation and think that employers should be able to sack someone without due process, that is fair enough. However, Ed Balls was a minister in the workers' party and ignored the correct process and is entirely responsible for the costs of this case.
|
|
By:
How do you expect Wesdaq to answer a question that Ed Balls couldn't answer correctly with all the relevant resources available to him?
|
|
By:
There you go again. Employment legislation when we are talking about one of the worst cases of child abuse and torture I have ever come across in my life We are debating whether this individual failed in her duties and whether she deserved this obnoxious payout. The forum and the court of common sense and decency suggests she did not.
|
|
By:
It wasn't the sacking that cost the money, it was the technicalities of the way it was handled.
Anyone in a lesser position wouldn't have got a payout. This woman has made a fortune out of misfortune. It is plain wrong and trying to make pathetic Party Political claims to justify what 'wing' you are doesn't change this. She was wrong, fecking useless at her job, and ultimately responsible. However it was handled afterwards. The woman has no scruples, no morals and what she's done is pure opportunism. |
|
By:
I'm asking for opinion anyway, dave1357.
Do YOU think she should have been sacked? Simple question. I know I do. |
|
By:
Don't think you are going to get an answer on this one Study
|
|
By:
Looks that way.
Seems they have no actual opinion. |