Shoesmith awarded £680,000

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.

Not in the opinion of judges who are not swayed by populist politicians and journalists just looking for an obvious scapegoat.

Yep, Judges.
Infallible the lot of them.

Yes,infallible to knee-jerk politicians and mob rule.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53024000/jpg/_53024849_012082633-1.jpg. Let's not forget. God bless you  young man

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.

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?

Why should I hate Ed Balls?

Such assertions undermines your argument.

Why can't you just answer a question I've now asked you 4 times?

wesdaq

you're not northernlad or Menelaus are you?

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.

So was she responsible for the doctors who failed to see the boy had multiple injuries and therefore failed to alert social services?

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

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.”

Get your facts right wes

Wesdag.

Should she, IN YOUR opinion, have been sacked?

And once the appeal court was made fully aware of all the facts, she won her case.

I'll leave you all to seethe.

I'm done with this thread.

You're just trolling

The truth hurts doesn't it.

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.

The doctors raised concerns and she did **** all about it. Fact. Instead she supported the vile creature that was his mother.

Best to ignore the troll that is Wesdag.

Sticks and stones, grow up ffs.

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.

Everybody has a right to an opinion and I have no problem with that but the guy is simply plain wrong

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.

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.

How do you expect Wesdaq to answer a question that Ed Balls couldn't answer correctly with all the relevant resources available to him?

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.

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.

I'm asking for opinion anyway, dave1357.

Do YOU think she should have been sacked?

Simple question.

I know I do.

Don't think you are going to get an answer on this one Study

Looks that way.

Seems they have no actual opinion.

Seems to have gone quiet when i highlighted the fact that a number of doctors contacted the relevant authorities such as police and the CPS with concerns about the boys injuries but in a letter written by this incompetents dept supporting the toerags who did this nothing was investigated further.What a shambles and I would not have let this individual look after a hamster.

Trolls, both of 'em.

Jul 25, 2014 -- 1:28PM, call me a taxi wrote:

Trolls, both of 'em.

........Yawn

As are the judges.....Yawn

Now she has won her case
will she be giving all the money to a children's charity Wesdag?

seems the moral thing to do

She has shown no morals up to now.Can't see it changing can you.

No there was a time when someone would have resigned themselves over this

still at a £133 K annual salary nobody does that nowadays

To be fair to Wesdag, she has won her case on this:
, which culminated in the Appeal Court ruling in 2011 that she had been unfairly sacked and “scapegoated” over the death of Peter Connelly.

I don't what his ruling was yesterday, or whether he needed to give one, but the judge has accepted this

The social workers dealing with this case were found to have fairly sacked

But it was found she was not. Haringey council thought she was, and still do
Also that ruling did not say there were no failings in her department, just not enough to sack her

So Wesdag is correct in this sense, not that I am happy about it,

I fully understand peoples reaction, that is very human, most of us do empathise with children
we would be a poor society if we did not

Shoesmith says she is absolutely thrilled...is this really the right choice of words to use???????

She say she wants to continue working with children...I sincerely hope she does not

I'm sorry I was unaware that once I had posted on a thread I was "on call" on a permanent basis.

I have absolutely no idea whether the woman was incompetent or culpable.  And I have no desire to delve into horrors of society's scum and the activities of the people that taxpayers choose to pay money to in order to wipe their consciences and ignore these horrors.

My only view on this episode is that a woman has in the eyes of the law and after an exhaustive process been dismissed unlawfully and compensated.  The man responsible for this is Ed Balls. 

If the woman was as incompetent as some of you feel AND it was not possible for her to be sacked lawfully, it would certainly seem that there is something wrong with the system.  But we will never know that because Ed Balls wanted to play to the crowd.

It was Haringey council who sacked her, they thought there were unacceptable failings in her department
I am not sure where Ed Balls comes into it although they may have given into pressure from him which would not have been right
I would agree with that

The two social workers were sacked correctly...they lost their appeal, they did not do their job to an acceptable
standard

How much the Shoesmith head of Department was to blame I would not know myself, without detailed study
anyway she has won her case, and been well paid for it

Sometimes people are not good at their jobs, but they can be hard to sack, as they just do enough
I do not know if that was the case or not really????????

The trouble I find with her is, it is all about the injustice she has suffered
she does not show anything like enough regret for baby P for me, for what happened to him at least,
even if she felt was unfairly blamed

although it may be this has not being reported by the media, when she has

dave,
Life just isn't fair.
But it's fairer for some than others.

dave1357
26 Jul 14 00:05   
I'm sorry I was unaware that once I had posted on a thread I was "on call" on a permanent basis.

You have to post a note from your mum to leave a thread on here.

Well said dave.

As you've seen, it's not very popular to oppose the crowd.

You do know it's very bad form to return to a thread once you've said you're "done with it", don't you?

You tell him Stevie.

On the positive side, 600k may be seen as a small price to pay to ensure that this useless, incompetent woman was removed from her post at the earliest opportunity. How many more kids would have been left vulnerable to harm if the proper process had been followed and she had been left in her job for another 6 months or whatever?

"Opposing the crowd" is not to be confused with being right.
It could be construed as trying to be the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

that u in the People study ?

I don't know what you mean



(shhh!)

A big well done to Rotherham Council, Senior Managers and the Police for yet another debacle with our young and most vulnerable children being ganged raped and set alight. Only 1400 by conservatives estimate this time. At least the Council leader has stepped down but not anybody else yet. These people are total morons who I wouldn't put them in charge of a kids party. The spokesman's comments " serious mistakes occurred and we must learn so that it doesn't happen again" Where have we heard that old chestnut before. Our public sector and child social services not fit for purpose.

If anybody got the sack, I hope they get at least £500,000 compensation.

Then w@nkers like Wesdaq can be happy.

We need prosecutions for the incompetence leading to such horrific crimes..

the report makes very grim reading 

"serious mistakes occurred and we must learn so that it doesn't happen again"

You'd think they just delivered the wrong take away order. No you cnunts. Lives will have been ruined by your inaction. People will live with what has happened to them for the rest of their lives. People will become broken adults unable to function properly and mental illness will disproportionately be the lifetime gift of these sick twisted baastards to these poor unfortunates. So fucck off and thank your lucky stars we no longer allow public floggings for gross dereliction of duty.

Wrong thread for that but there's a definite pattern amongst these services not getting involved and choosing easy targets.

call me a taxi    26 Aug 14 16:42 
If anybody got the sack, I hope they get at least £500,000 compensation.

Then w@nkers like Wesdaq can be happy.
...................................................

That's his idea ^^ of serious debate.

If I was to respond to all your ranting and keyboard sabre rattling, I'd be doing nothing else.

HTH.

This prick thinks it's funny.

^ I always find the ignorant ranting of intellectually challenged amusing.

There's only one person here who has shown his total ignorance of the subject matter. Time and time again it happens and you seem to derive a lot of satisfaction in calling black white.

He's a troll.

My post censored

after expressing my personal disgust at the award

the society we live in nowadays

The compensation system, one of the most damaging and appalling systems we have ever adopted
I do not know whose idea this was

Aug 27, 2014 -- 5:05PM, call me a taxi wrote:

He's a troll.

This kind of name calling really highlights the level of your mind and how small it is.

Based on the pre-historic views you continually spout, you must be at least in your sixties but yet you have to resort to playground labelling because you have no coherent argument or have the means to express it.

You fail to comprehend that the judges found in Shoesmith's favour because she was made a scapegoat for the failings of other agencies including the NHS and the Met Police.

Perhaps the judges too are trolls because they use their intellect dispassionately to interpret and apply the law rather than are swayed by the ill-informed lynch-mob mentality of the mob.

It is ironic that you continually harp on about justice for Peter Connelly.  Justice is a universal concept which is colour-blind.  Would you be bothered if this poor boy was black?

I HOPE THE OLD COW DIES BEFORE SHE CAN SPEND A PENNY OF IT. HARSH I KNOW BUT SHE AS GOOD AS LET THAT POOR LITTLE LAD DIE DUE TO HER INCOMPETENCE. THE WHOLE AFFAIR STINKS.

^^^^
I totally concur barney15c

Call me a taxi
He‘s a troll.

Wesdaq
This kind of name calling really highlights the level of your mind and how small it is. Based on the pre-historic views you continually spout, you must be at least in your sixties but yet you have to resort to playground labelling because you have no coherent argument or have the means to express it.

63 in September, which proves that even you can be right, once in a while. Prehistoric is not the correct term, and it doesn’t require a hyphen either.

Perhaps the judges too are trolls because they use their intellect dispassionately to interpret and apply the law rather than are swayed by the ill-informed lynch-mob mentality of the mob.

If the law (a judge) does it’s job properly as you implied, try reading the ‘THEN THE LAW SIR, IS AN ASS’ thread. A  woman aged just 21 in south coast resort, who had 18 (yes eighteen) previous convictions for violence, walked free from a courtroom after she was found guilty of hitting a man in the face with a glass in a pub. He was lucky not to lose an eye. On the same day in Walsall, a man was sent to prison for 33 months for filming a movie on a phone from the back row of a cinema.

^^ Explain how both judges got that right.

It is ironic that you continually harp on about justice for Peter Connelly. Justice is a universal concept which is colour-blind.

Could you direct me towards the posts made by me, where I  ‘continually harp on about justice for Peter Connelly.’

Would you be bothered if this poor boy was black?

On this very thread I posted a host of atrocities against children that started back in 1973 with Maria Colwell.

It’s on page 3: dated 24 Jul 14 19:27
I didn’t post about black or asian atrocities only, I posted all 13 stories that I found.

And onto another of my threads

‘Essex man has caustic chemical thrown in his face’

The thread primarily concerns the [b]BBC’s TELEVISION news pages under reporting crime by blacks and asians.[/b] 

Wesdag   
13 Aug 14 21:45 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-28731050
From the same article, written on 10th August it clearly states:
"The two suspects are described as a white man and a black man and if anyone saw them either in the area prior to this attack or afterwards we would urgently like to speak to them."
It appears that the op puts having a good seethe ahead of getting his facts correct.

After I pointed out that you were wrong, ti was for BBC TELEVISION news, and asked if you could tell the difference, did you comeback back and apologise for calling me a liar?

Of course not, trolls don’t apologise for anything. 

Almost 20 hours later, your wit, wisdom and willingness to debate came up with this gem:

Wesdag   
14 Aug 14 16:29 
Always amusing to see the usual suspects having a good Alf Garnet style seethe.

I said that I don’t seethe, but if I did, I could wake up calm in the morning, whereas, like all trolls, you’re destined to wake up stupid every day.

Still not content, you posted to naydam. 

Wesdag   
14 Aug 14 19:00 
naydam,
I simply find it amusing that this kind of Alf Garnet style ranting as displayed above still exists.
Such types seem to have a massive chip on their shoulder which you can't help but laugh at.
They are relics of the past who can't or won't accept that the world has moved on. If that constitutes "winding people up", then so be it.

I posted this.

call me a taxi   
14 Aug 14 20:14 
Wesdaq, are you black?
If not, do you live in an area with a large black or asian population?
Tell us where you live.

This was to try and ascertain if you had experienced living in a community similar to where I used to live, where the indigenous whites are outnumbered by a ratio of 2:1

It took you almost 2 days to reply. I don’t really consider  it as one of your finer points of debate:

Wesdag   
16 Aug 14 18:45 
Keep it up Alf Garnet

Hardly the response of somebody who insists he’s not a troll.

My difficulty with this

Is we have a baby beaten to death at one end
and someone getting a very large pay off at the other

Where is Baby P's compensation, where is his life, it no longer seems to matter?????????????

I cannot think that anyone should be making money out of this
it show me we are very sick society

This award is grossly offensive to some of us
The person involved if they had decency should have resigned anyway in my opinion

is wes sib ?

If the person involved just wanted to clear her name

then she should now donate this entire sum to a children's charity

If she keeps it, it tells me everything I need to know about her

28 August

13:03

that time and post Wesdag ^^^^

call me a taxi    
28 Aug 14 13:03

You missed it again, troll.

you missed it again, troll

Disliking all blacks because one's sister gets mugged by one once upon a time seems imminently logical.

That has nothing to  do with you reading my post on the 28th.

Being selective again are you?

Wesdag    05 Sep 14 14:32 
Disliking all blacks because one's sister gets mugged by one once upon a time seems imminently logical.

FWIW - I think you meant illogical.

I have a black mate, a half pakistani mate and a chinese mate.

In the 70s I lived with a Sikh girl.

Her dad was selectively racist, he didn't like me, but didn't mind her brother being married to a white girl.

Try looking up the word irony then perhaps you'll find the sentence makes sense.

Her dad was selectively racist, he didn't like me, but didn't mind her brother being married to a white girl.

That's not selective racism or any kind of racism, that's just him not liking you.

MB, don't be stew pit  man.
I was gorgeous and lovable.

Wesdag    05 Sep 14 14:42 
Try looking up the word irony then perhaps you'll find the sentence makes sense.

Best excuse I've seen for a grammatical error.

Now, about that post on the 28th.

call me a taxi    05 Sep 14 14:39 

I have a black mate, a half pakistani mate and a chinese mate.

Good to see you backtrack by using that old chestnut, "some of my best friends..."

Maybe there's some hope for you yet.

Although the media blamed Haringey social workers and Shoesmith for failing to intervene to protect Peter, subsequent inquiries showed that Metropolitan police officers and Great Ormond Street hospital doctors had all made serious errors.

Should we sack the police and the doctors too and pay hundreds of thousands training up replacements?  Should Ed Balls resign for his incompetence in jumping on the media bandwagon?  Should Haringey councillors resign for spending £196,000 in trying to cover up their part in the incompetent sacking?

Is it probable that she was made a media and political scapegoat, in the blame culture that pervades those on their moral high horses in the UK media, and the righteous social media mobs that ensue, all of whom we are laughably to assume, never make any errors themselves?

She fought back and she won.  A wrong was righted.  Two wrongs, or as it turns out, one more of several wrongs, don't make a right.

"Should we sack the police and the doctors too and pay hundreds of thousands training up replacements?  Should Ed Balls resign for his incompetence in jumping on the media bandwagon?  Should Haringey councillors resign for spending £196,000 in trying to cover up their part in the incompetent sacking?"

The first 2, yes, depending on the severity of their "serious errors". As for the third, most definitely.

Wesdag    05 Sep 14 14:57 
call me a taxi    05 Sep 14 14:39 
I have a black mate, a half pakistani mate and a chinese mate.
Good to see you backtrack by using that old chestnut, "some of my best friends..."
Maybe there's some hope for you yet

There is no backtrack, troll.

And it doesn't say 'best friends'- has masturbating made you blind? 

It says mates.

There's a difference between friends and mates. 

I have only one best mate, we have been mates for over 45 years. He's white, born in West Ham, sounds as cockney as me, but his dad was Irish. 

Once again, troll 
This has nothing to do with you failing to respond to my post on the 28th.

You seem to keep missing the chance.

Ok, so they're not "bestest mates" but they're mates none the less?

You brought up the fact that you aspire to be a rational human being not me.

And you missed responding to my 28th August post - again.

Are you seething that  you can't fault it?

Because I know that you read it.

Why should I seethe?

The moment you display that you dislike a person solely based on the colour of their skin, then how can I consider you rational?

Why would I waste my time going through such an extensive post from somebody who has already indicated that they are not rational?

seething ^^^

Seething that you're still seething about an entire race because your sister happened to get mugged by a couple of blacks?

Lets hope she's at least recovered from the physical injuries if not the mental ones.

Wesdag
06 Sep 14 02:06   
Why should I seethe?

Simple, you told lies and I responded.
You read that 28/08 post but are facked for an answer. 

Seethe away, lying troll.

Wouldn't spend more than 10 seconds reading your small minded drivel for the same reasons I would bother reading Mein Kampf.

* wouldn't bother