So it seems this useless woman is now asking the courts to hand her a million quid for unfair dismissal.
It seems ( in her twisted world ) that she has done nothing wrong at all, in this shambolic and tragic case.
As SHE was in charge of this department, she should bear the brunt of this, so I do not think she should get a damn penny.
Ed Balls is right and on this occasion the Minister was correct in sacking her straight away, with no financial gain.
As a person she has not shown an ounce of integrity, but there are loads of greedy money grabbing lawyers out there, ready to take her case on.
The days of British justice will be gone forever, if this woman receives a single penny. In fact I hope she loses and has to pick up her own costs, and that brings her financial downfall.
This woman has no shame and only wants the money, and she was there to protect kids? Who the heck is going to protect us from her??
I have my own opinions of Social Workers as I have had personnel dealings with them, and as this one was at the top of the tree, no wonder Social workers are in short reply. Not all are bad for sure, but there are far too many bad ones in the system.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Shoesmith and compensation
Orgasminator
she does have a bit of a point... in most proffesions if you lose your job you lose your job, you just go out and find a new one, and as its either illegal or just not the done thing to give bad references we'd just go out and get a new job. she has been made a scape goat or a sacrificial lamb, a focal point for people to see that something has been done. the way it has been covered and the fact it was so publically done, has made it near on impossible for her to find any other employment - and this is where i think she has a point... she is now practically un-employable as who would want to be associated with her?
Quote by two-4-more
she does have a bit of a point... in most proffesions if you lose your job you lose your job, you just go out and find a new one, and as its either illegal or just not the done thing to give bad references we'd just go out and get a new job. she has been made a scape goat or a sacrificial lamb, a focal point for people to see that something has been done. the way it has been covered and the fact it was so publically done, has made it near on impossible for her to find any other employment - and this is where i think she has a point... she is now practically un-employable as who would want to be associated with her?
And rightly so.
If you watch any interview with this woman she comes across as a cold hearted old bag.
I for one hope that she never finds anyone to employ her, she let a young child down when he needed that help her department was supposed to give.
The only thing this pratt is interested in is money....period.
I detest her for her attitude and to think this woman was on over 130 grand a year...something has a very bad smell, and it is leaking from her direction.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
she does have a bit of a point... in most proffesions if you lose your job you lose your job, you just go out and find a new one, and as its either illegal or just not the done thing to give bad references we'd just go out and get a new job. she has been made a scape goat or a sacrificial lamb, a focal point for people to see that something has been done. the way it has been covered and the fact it was so publically done, has made it near on impossible for her to find any other employment - and this is where i think she has a point... she is now practically un-employable as who would want to be associated with her?
And rightly so.
If you watch any interview with this woman she comes across as a cold hearted old bag.
I for one hope that she never finds anyone to employ her, she let a young child down when he needed that help her department was supposed to give.
The only thing this pratt is interested in is money....period.
I detest her for her attitude and to think this woman was on over 130 grand a year...something has a very bad smell, and it is leaking from her directi
Ah so its OK that she's left bleeding the state dry by claiming benefits
2-4-more has a point. Though not wishing to come across as just too soft in the head leftie what do we do with the woman? OK it seems that she seems cold hearted to us, do you really think she wanted or intended or was even prepared for what happened. OK so as head of Social services etc she should be accountable of course, though why is the minister of Care Services at the time not getting a bollockin
Losty....There are some very worrying things about this case, and the main one is this.
Harringay Council was also in the news for the Victoria Clumbie ( think that is spelt correctly )case.
Now to have one serious case where a child dies in horrid circumstances is bad enough, but for the SAME council to suffer another one just as bad if not worse, sums it up for me.
I would have thought myself that after the first case, and all the so called changes that were either made or called for, another death happens. Not only that but the reports afterwards slate Harringay councils work ethics.
I would have thought that a leader of social services, working for a council that had already been through this once before, would have made doubly sure this would never happen again.
Is it just a case of bad luck this council is back in the news again, or is it just down to sheer incompetence from the people who work there?
Ultimately the buck stops with her, and I think if her whole attitude would have been a bit more caring, maybe just maybe she would not have been treated so badly. As it was she acted as though nothing was ever her fault. Sorry I have no sympathy for this woman, and I do not see how this woman can be demanding one million fucking quid in compensation.
I am sure that if she pissed off abroad somewhere, she would not be so recognisable, and therefore more able to get a job.
IF you was a leader of a local council would you hire this woman, knowing what you know, to run childrens services? I think not, so on that basis it is her and her alone, that has made herself unemployable.
Harringay Council was also in the news for the Victoria Clumbie ( think that is spelt correctly )case.
Now to have one serious case where a child dies in horrid circumstances is bad enough, but for the SAME council to suffer another one just as bad if not worse, sums it up for me.
I would have thought myself that after the first case, and all the so called changes that were either made or called for, another death happens. Not only that but the reports afterwards slate Harringay councils work ethics.
I would have thought that a leader of social services, working for a council that had already been through this once before, would have made doubly sure this would never happen again.
Is it just a case of bad luck this council is back in the news again, or is it just down to sheer incompetence from the people who work there?
Ultimately the buck stops with her, and I think if her whole attitude would have been a bit more caring, maybe just maybe she would not have been treated so badly. As it was she acted as though nothing was ever her fault. Sorry I have no sympathy for this woman, and I do not see how this woman can be demanding one million fucking quid in compensation.
I am sure that if she pissed off abroad somewhere, she would not be so recognisable, and therefore more able to get a job.
IF you was a leader of a local council would you hire this woman, knowing what you know, to run childrens services? I think not, so on that basis it is her and her alone, that has made herself unemployable.
Quote by Dave__Notts
I can't wait for this case to start.
Now the truth will come out in court to exactly what decisions were made and who made them, without the the Sun being judge, jury and executioner.
Dave_Notts
Yeah right o Davey....another person who thinks the press rule the world!
Don't forget the Sun NEVER sacked her, it was the MINISTER Ed Balls.
Do you really think this guy took the decision he took, based solely on what the Sun wrote?
He is a far cleverer man than you and me, and you can bet before he sacked her he took legal advice from his own council.
Based on that and the evidence before him, he sacked her.
Don't talk so much rubbish about the Sun being " judge, jury and executioner ".
SO if the court upholds his decision and awards her nothing, will you be the first one on here to issue an appology to the Sun?
He believe me has more evidence than you or me. He took a decison based on what he had in front of him. He has not detracted from that for one second.
I think your opinion of the Sun's power and influence, is somewhat over exagerated, or do you think a newspaper can sway a Minister in HM Government? :shock:
My what power you think the Sun has over us.....some Micky Mouse " rag " whose readers are " white van man " mentality. Not what you have said, but what others have said in this forum at some point. Silly me...there was I thinking the Sun were grubby headline seekers, where the only people who took it seriously were the dimwits in society.
Now where's me Sunday times?
Orgasminator
think the point I made is being missed here... Its not the fact that she has been sacked necessarily, its the way it was done. Whether she deserved it or not doesn't matter its the fact that it was done so publicly... They could have quite easily said those involved had been sacked. Instead they named and shamed. Thus making it impossible for her to find work - and I don't think a "she can piss of abroad to find work" is a fair response. If you made a mistake and fail to change things to put it right and you were sacked then you'd accept it, if you former employers then deliberately (or incompetently) made it impossible for you to find work what would you do sit on the dole or find a way to get the decision over turned or at worse compensated for it?
Quote by kentswingers777
He is a far cleverer man than you and me
Speak for yourself Kenty old boy.
Quote by kentswingers777
and you can bet before he sacked her he took legal advice from his own council.
He is part of Central Government and not Local Authority........ahhhhhh now I see why you said he was cleverer than you
:lol: :lol: :lol: Joking aside, once again a lovely Gaunty style rant. I am glad you have not lost your touch. But I prefer to look at what is front of me and then make a decision myself and not be lead by the Sun whose only mission is to make money. When all the information is available I will decide on what I think then.
Will I make an apology if the Sun is right? Why? My whole point of the debate on this whole issue is that the whole picture has not been put in the public domain...and neither has the Sun seen it so they have come to a conclusion on half the story. That sounds just to me
. You say Ed Balls has seen the evidence and then sacked her, then let the public see it, where in any inquiry you allow the person who has been critised a right of reply. But not in this case, just hang 'er high and let mob ruleDave_Notts
It has nothing to do with " mob rule ". People en mass were sickened and angry over this blatant let down to this child. Not only by Shoesmith, but by the police and the social workers, and the doctor involved.
The doctor was sacked and as far as I know some of the social workers involved were too.
People cannot have it both ways here. So many people screamed they wanted something done, and when it was there were " some " who started crying out...it is unfair. :shock:
We have a National newspaper, the Sun, who took it on board to mount a petition to get not only her sacked, but everyone involved with this childs death. What a dreadful lot they are.
Ed Balls did not make his decision based on what the Sun either wrote or stated. He took his decision on the details of the case, and the fact it was one of the worst run Social services in the country. Now Shoesmith is being paid vast sums of money to PROTECT kids in HER departments care. She failed miserably but still never accepted she did anything wrong.
She did as did her social workers, and as I have already stated this sham of a council had a previous case as well, where I would have thought mistakes would have been learned.
The public in general got what they wanted, in that her and her useless social workers, were held to task and named and shamed, and then sacked without any compensation. In my mind and from what I have heard most people agree with that decision. For those who think she is being treated harshly, spare a minute of your time to think what that child must have gone through in his short life, and then think how it could have been avoided IF these useless tossers had done the job they not only have degrees in, but are paid high sums of money for.
Would anyone here be ok with this woman being put in charge of needy kids again?
She got what she deserved and when it goes to court I believe she will be seen to be the incompetant useless woman Ed Balls said she was.
I hope she never works again and this court case she loses and financially cripples her and her ilk. Maybe just maybe others in her position of power will think twice before adopting such attitudes again, and just maybe that will lead to these people doing the right thing, and in the end help to save a childs life, where it may well have met the same fate as baby P did.
The doctor was sacked and as far as I know some of the social workers involved were too.
People cannot have it both ways here. So many people screamed they wanted something done, and when it was there were " some " who started crying out...it is unfair. :shock:
We have a National newspaper, the Sun, who took it on board to mount a petition to get not only her sacked, but everyone involved with this childs death. What a dreadful lot they are.
Ed Balls did not make his decision based on what the Sun either wrote or stated. He took his decision on the details of the case, and the fact it was one of the worst run Social services in the country. Now Shoesmith is being paid vast sums of money to PROTECT kids in HER departments care. She failed miserably but still never accepted she did anything wrong.
She did as did her social workers, and as I have already stated this sham of a council had a previous case as well, where I would have thought mistakes would have been learned.
The public in general got what they wanted, in that her and her useless social workers, were held to task and named and shamed, and then sacked without any compensation. In my mind and from what I have heard most people agree with that decision. For those who think she is being treated harshly, spare a minute of your time to think what that child must have gone through in his short life, and then think how it could have been avoided IF these useless tossers had done the job they not only have degrees in, but are paid high sums of money for.
Would anyone here be ok with this woman being put in charge of needy kids again?
She got what she deserved and when it goes to court I believe she will be seen to be the incompetant useless woman Ed Balls said she was.
I hope she never works again and this court case she loses and financially cripples her and her ilk. Maybe just maybe others in her position of power will think twice before adopting such attitudes again, and just maybe that will lead to these people doing the right thing, and in the end help to save a childs life, where it may well have met the same fate as baby P did.
Thanks for that Pseudo-Gaunty........but it had nothing to do with what I posted.
I can't wait for the whole information to become available so I can make up my own mind. All the facts have not been made public, there is a person/persons who have not been given a voice. When I hear this/these voices I will then make my own mind up,and not be told what to think by a paper.
To be brutally murdered is horrendous and the perpetrators should be held to account. To investigate and not give somebody a voice, and then hang them out to dry to stave off a political problem is disgraceful. To have the public accepting this makes me sad.
It is the truth that needs to come out, then this may prevent another case.
Dave_Notts
I can't wait for the whole information to become available so I can make up my own mind. All the facts have not been made public, there is a person/persons who have not been given a voice. When I hear this/these voices I will then make my own mind up,and not be told what to think by a paper.
To be brutally murdered is horrendous and the perpetrators should be held to account. To investigate and not give somebody a voice, and then hang them out to dry to stave off a political problem is disgraceful. To have the public accepting this makes me sad.
It is the truth that needs to come out, then this may prevent another case.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for that Pseudo-Gaunty........but it had nothing to do with what I posted.
I can't wait for the whole information to become available so I can make up my own mind. All the facts have not been made public, there is a person/persons who have not been given a voice. When I hear this/these voices I will then make my own mind up,and not be told what to think by a paper.
To be brutally murdered is horrendous and the perpetrators should be held to account. To investigate and not give somebody a voice, and then hang them out to dry to stave off a political problem is disgraceful. To have the public accepting this makes me sad.
It is the truth that needs to come out, then this may prevent another case.
Dave_Notts
That is twice now you have made a reference to Gaunty....that is a worrying sign.
Well you believe what you like but I will take what I have seen and read, and a Ministers actions as enough for me.
I know that this shite country with it's pc mad brigade, will no doubt be on her side, and screaming for her large payout.
We know that like the case of the two lesbians who were awarded christ knows how much money for being picked on. Yes wrong I know but did not justify the payout. Her payout of a million quid equates to about eight years salary.
Nice money if you can get it, and I hope she gets nothing. I believe the buck stops with her, but the thing I hate the most about it is her pig headed stubborn shit faced hard nosed attitude, of I have done nothing wrong.
Well I believe she will find out soon enough, that she will be held accountable, and that the minister was right, and she gets nothing other than short thrift.....could not happen to a nicer woman.
Hopefully the reason for her actions will come to the fore and then I will be able to look at why this happened.
I would like to see the minutes of the meetings where she would have presented the requirements of the department to Council and see what was decided and by whom. I would like to see the Central Government policy to Social Services and the budget allocations. I would like to see the monitoring by Central Government to ensure that the policy was implemented. All these things are missing at the moment.
This case will bring all this into the public domain and this is what Ed Balls and the Council are panicking about now. This is not a failing of one person. This is a system failure. She may have failings but to say that it was all her fault is ridiculous.
To pick up on her as not saying sorry as a major fault is daft in my view. If she didn't say sorry then we have seen the backlash. If she did say sorry then people would point at the fact she said sorry so must be to blame and should resign. Damned if she does or not.
Dave_Notts
I would like to see the minutes of the meetings where she would have presented the requirements of the department to Council and see what was decided and by whom. I would like to see the Central Government policy to Social Services and the budget allocations. I would like to see the monitoring by Central Government to ensure that the policy was implemented. All these things are missing at the moment.
This case will bring all this into the public domain and this is what Ed Balls and the Council are panicking about now. This is not a failing of one person. This is a system failure. She may have failings but to say that it was all her fault is ridiculous.
To pick up on her as not saying sorry as a major fault is daft in my view. If she didn't say sorry then we have seen the backlash. If she did say sorry then people would point at the fact she said sorry so must be to blame and should resign. Damned if she does or not.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
Hopefully the reason for her actions will come to the fore and then I will be able to look at why this happened.
I would like to see the minutes of the meetings where she would have presented the requirements of the department to Council and see what was decided and by whom. I would like to see the Central Government policy to Social Services and the budget allocations. I would like to see the monitoring by Central Government to ensure that the policy was implemented. All these things are missing at the moment.
This case will bring all this into the public domain and this is what Ed Balls and the Council are panicking about now. This is not a failing of one person. This is a system failure. She may have failings but to say that it was all her fault is ridiculous.
To pick up on her as not saying sorry as a major fault is daft in my view. If she didn't say sorry then we have seen the backlash. If she did say sorry then people would point at the fact she said sorry so must be to blame and should resign. Damned if she does or not.
Dave_Notts
Davey as most people stated in that petition, they were angry that she showed no remorse whatsoever, and never once made any form of appology.
Had she have done this I am sure a lot more people would have been a bit more sympathetic towards her. As it was it was her cold hard faced attitude, even though HER department have since been slammed in reports, as being one of the worst run childrens services.
Also I do not think for a second that Mr Balls is worried about anything. He yes made the decision but am sure he would have run it past many people before making that would certainly have known of any legal implications, but he was sure in his mind, that what she had done warranted instant sacking.
Yes it was a collection of errors, and of course if we had decent parents this kind of thing would never happen. But the fact remains her department was run very badly, and incompetence was rife throughout.
Others have already been sacked dealing with this case, all with no payoffs. They have just accepted it and crawled back under a nice big stone, but for her it is about exactly that...her.
I will listen intently to this case when it comes to court, and I bet there will be more revelations about her, that will show how incompetent she really in cases like this, will appear ready to stick the knife in even further. It could end up being her ultimate downfall.
Orgasminator
Quote by browning
I may be wrong here.....
It seems that in the 'old' days, public servants 'threw themselves on thier swords' when caught doing wrong.
Nowadays they just don't have any shame.
She should have gone quietley, she was head honcho and the buck stopped with her.
dont think she was given the choice to go quietly, she was named and shamed and thrown to the public lions
Quote by browning
She should have gone quietley, she was head honcho and the buck stopped with her.
I would have thought the buck should have stopped with Ed Balls who was an even bigger head honcho.
The problems besetting Child Protection (and most other areas of Social Work) are due to under-manning and therefore overwork. This is due partly to Government target setting which reduces the amount of client contact time and partly due to people leaving Child Protection in droves because they don't want to be the public's whipping boy.
Any of you keyboard warriors that are so incensed about this issue could take up the Government's recruiting initiative for Child Protection workers (horse and stable door there though) and actually try to help these poor children that you are all so concerned about.
Failing that, possibly some voluntary work with youths might help to alleviate the apparent problems with feral youths.
No? Thought not.
Quote by northwest-cpl
She should have gone quietley, she was head honcho and the buck stopped with her.
I would have thought the buck should have stopped with Ed Balls who was an even bigger head honcho.
The problems besetting Child Protection (and most other areas of Social Work) are due to under-manning and therefore overwork. This is due partly to Government target setting which reduces the amount of client contact time and partly due to people leaving Child Protection in droves because they don't want to be the public's whipping boy.
Any of you keyboard warriors that are so incensed about this issue could take up the Government's recruiting initiative for Child Protection workers (horse and stable door there though) and actually try to help these poor children that you are all so concerned about.
Failing that, possibly some voluntary work with youths might help to alleviate the apparent problems with feral youths.
No? Thought not.
I agree, there's always a bigger fish and to say that she was the head honcho so the buck should stop with her I think isn't entirely correct.
Without knowing the full workings of the office and the work it was doing, or not, then it's all to easy to point the finger and make a scape goat. As an example I look at the case of Lt Col Mendonca where he had to foot the blame for the death of a prisoner in the custody of his unit. I can guarentee that he had no knowledge of what went on at the time and I can guarentee that to the best of his knowledge the prisoner was being treated as he should and not neglected. He put into play all the correct procedures. Unfortunately it was down to a small minority who had been placed in a position of responsibilty and trust which caused the incident.
What i'm trying to say is that from Col Mendonca's perspective he did everything he could to ensure the safety of the prisoner but was let down by one of his subordinates.
Without knowing the full details I can imagine that this was the case here. Without knowing the full details I can only imagine that her care workers make a report on each case, she then reads and acts on that report. If the report that was presented to her wasn't accurate then how could you hold her to blame? (Only what I imagine, correct me if I'm miles off the mark)
I'm not saying she's innocent, i'm not saying she's guilty. I'm just saying it's easy to point fingers and make someone a scape goat when your not in posesion of ALL of the facts.
Quote by northwest-cpl
She should have gone quietley, she was head honcho and the buck stopped with her.
I would have thought the buck should have stopped with Ed Balls who was an even bigger head honcho.
The problems besetting Child Protection (and most other areas of Social Work) are due to under-manning and therefore overwork. This is due partly to Government target setting which reduces the amount of client contact time and partly due to people leaving Child Protection in droves because they don't want to be the public's whipping boy.
Any of you keyboard warriors that are so incensed about this issue could take up the Government's recruiting initiative for Child Protection workers (horse and stable door there though) and actually try to help these poor children that you are all so concerned about.
Failing that, possibly some voluntary work with youths might help to alleviate the apparent problems with feral youths.
No? Thought not.
That is a strange and pointless analogy. You could use that arguement EVERY time you heard someone argueing or moaning about something.....if you don't like it do this or do that about it.
Yes Ed Balls is top " honcho " but is he to be held accountable for every council up and down the country? For every social workers mistake? What nonsense.
Yes of course social services are undermanned and overworked but remember this child did not die through those reasons ~( check how many times he was visited )he died through lack of care from Haringays Social services.
It has nothing to do with being anybodys " whipping boy " as to why they are leaving. They have been leaving for years as it can be a shitty stressful job, but there are rewards. They have not just suddenly started to leave after the baby P case.
From your comment " keyboard warrior " I have seen you be one of those, in fact plenty of people can be one of those.I would not want to work for any social services department, to be a Johny do gooder trying to help some kids that would rather just tell you to " fuck off ".
Yes there are plenty of kids that need help but some of them are past the point of caring for, as they have had too many years of shit thrown at them.
I have neither the time or the aptitude to do work with youths, I have enough time spent trying to look after my business from going under.
With your comment of " apparent problems with feral youths " it seems you have your doubts as to how many there are out there anyway.
Don't knock people for not wanting to help, they all have their reasons as to why they do not. Mine is quite simple....to work with feral youths would drive me nuts, I do not have the time, and to be honest they are not my problem. MY kids are my problem, their behavior and attitude, is my problem, and putting money on the table takes preference in my life.
As usual I will be proved right over this woman, when it comes to court and she gets nothing, and Ed Balls will be proved to be right, and taken the right as usual all the ones that slated me tend to go very quite, and slinker off to put their comments somewhere else.
Quote by kentswingers777
She should have gone quietley, she was head honcho and the buck stopped with her.
I would have thought the buck should have stopped with Ed Balls who was an even bigger head honcho.
The problems besetting Child Protection (and most other areas of Social Work) are due to under-manning and therefore overwork. This is due partly to Government target setting which reduces the amount of client contact time and partly due to people leaving Child Protection in droves because they don't want to be the public's whipping boy.
Any of you keyboard warriors that are so incensed about this issue could take up the Government's recruiting initiative for Child Protection workers (horse and stable door there though) and actually try to help these poor children that you are all so concerned about.
Failing that, possibly some voluntary work with youths might help to alleviate the apparent problems with feral youths.
No? Thought not.
That is a strange and pointless analogy. You could use that arguement EVERY time you heard someone argueing or moaning about something.....if you don't like it do this or do that about it.
It wasn't an analogy, it was a suggestion.
Yes Ed Balls is top " honcho " but is he to be held accountable for every council up and down the country? For every social workers mistake? What nonsense.
Yet you want Sixsmith to be held responsible for every front line worker's actions? If Sixsmith was so inept why didn't the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families do something about her earlier?
Yes of course social services are undermanned and overworked but remember this child did not die through those reasons ~( check how many times he was visited )he died through lack of care from Haringays Social services.
He died because his mother and her boyfriend killed him. Possibly we lose sight of that.
It has nothing to do with being anybodys " whipping boy " as to why they are leaving. They have been leaving for years as it can be a shitty stressful job, but there are rewards. They have not just suddenly started to leave after the baby P case.
They have been leaving in droves for many years. The average stay in child care (as was) was probably less than 5 years. The problem is recruitment and who would want to join a profession that is likely to end with your name on the front page of the Sun?
From your comment " keyboard warrior " I have seen you be one of those, in fact plenty of people can be one of those.I would not want to work for any social services department, to be a Johny do gooder trying to help some kids that would rather just tell you to " fuck off ".
Yet you want someone else to be a Johnny do gooder and be told to fuck off? Or should we just close down all social services and leave the future baby P's, or Maria Caldwells for that matter, to take their chances?
Yes there are plenty of kids that need help but some of them are past the point of caring for, as they have had too many years of shit thrown at them.
So it's the scrapheap for them then?
I have neither the time or the aptitude to do work with youths, I have enough time spent trying to look after my business from going under.
Just as well everybody doesn't think like that or 'Feral Britain ' would be even worse.
With your comment of " apparent problems with feral youths " it seems you have your doubts as to how many there are out there anyway.
"Folk Devils and Moral Panics" Stanley Cohen, 1972. Well worth a read despite being 37 years old now. Things don't change much do they?
Don't knock people for not wanting to help, they all have their reasons as to why they do not. Mine is quite simple....to work with feral youths would drive me nuts, I do not have the time, and to be honest they are not my problem. MY kids are my problem, their behavior and attitude, is my problem, and putting money on the table takes preference in my life.
Very good sentiments there. But if you're not prepared to do something to help alter a situation you're quite rightly not happy with maybe you should stop whinging about it. Put up or shut up springs to mind.
As usual I will be proved right over this woman, when it comes to court and she gets nothing, and Ed Balls will be proved to be right, and taken the right as usual all the ones that slated me tend to go very quite, and slinker off to put their comments somewhere else.
I think most people are waiting for the outcome of the court case and then will know a little of the truth in this case. You may well be correct in your opinions, I may well agree with many of your sentiments about Haringay, but I am prepared to wait until I know more of the facts, and when those facts are known I will be very unlikely to start a thread on a swingers site about it when there are so many political internet forums where my efforts would be better spent.
Thanks for your well thought out reply.
I like it when people take the time to answer, and in a rational way.
Yes we will have to wait but I think I already know what the score is.
Remember Ed Balls is in charge of 100's of councils, whereby she was only in charge of one.
Because I do not want to give my time up, does not mean I cannot have a say in anything, or as you put it " whinge ".
I like you have a right to air our views, of which we have both done, allbeit with differing views.
I think like many though you over estimate the Sun. Most deem it a rag, not fit to wipe ya arse on yet....they can help to change Governments and have enough power to sway a Minister into sacking a head of a councils social services. Strange.
The Sun certainly were not the only " rag " to report on this story, in fact it even reached the good ol USA. Even the Guardian did a piece or two on it, or are you saying only the Sun;s reporting of it was crap?
Anyway we will both have to wait, and I have made my feelings known about this woman, but I thankyou for your comments of which most have a lot of validation to them
I like it when people take the time to answer, and in a rational way.
Yes we will have to wait but I think I already know what the score is.
Remember Ed Balls is in charge of 100's of councils, whereby she was only in charge of one.
Because I do not want to give my time up, does not mean I cannot have a say in anything, or as you put it " whinge ".
I like you have a right to air our views, of which we have both done, allbeit with differing views.
I think like many though you over estimate the Sun. Most deem it a rag, not fit to wipe ya arse on yet....they can help to change Governments and have enough power to sway a Minister into sacking a head of a councils social services. Strange.
The Sun certainly were not the only " rag " to report on this story, in fact it even reached the good ol USA. Even the Guardian did a piece or two on it, or are you saying only the Sun;s reporting of it was crap?
Anyway we will both have to wait, and I have made my feelings known about this woman, but I thankyou for your comments of which most have a lot of validation to them
Quote by kentswingers777
That is a strange and pointless analogy. You could use that arguement EVERY time you heard someone argueing or moaning about something.....if you don't like it do this or do that about it.
Strange and pointless? I'm very surprised you think that considering it's one you used yourself on the 'Jungle' thread,
Quote by kentswingers777
Minxy if you are so concerned about mans fellow plight against fellow man, there are many things you can do to help.
From raising money to even going out to say Africa to help. Have you done any of that at all?
No point saying we should do this and that, without doing something yourself first.....unless you have?
Kenty, your media driven rants against social worker's are becoming tiresome, It's not really a case of people 'slinking off because they know their wrong' as you so humbly state, more of a case of there is no point in debating with someone who uses knee jerk, lynch mob reasoning on what is a serious and desperate situation, children are dying, not because of the easy cop out and sensationalist 'individual negligence' but because of systemic under investment, massive case loads, target driven governance and in this case evil, sadistic parents.
The tabloid media Kenty, sensationalise, lie, distort and twist the truth to sell copy, that seriously is not the problem, the idiotic sheeple who blindly take what they read in between the tit's and the 'celebrity non news' stories as the gospel truth are. As yet the public do not know the full facts behind this story, in fact you probably never will know the complete truth. All you know is what papers have printed using the above formula.
Educate yourself for gods sake, you want to know how trustworthy and truthful the media are? It's easy, just go to google and search for 'tabloid libel payouts' I doubt it, but it may open your eyes a little.
" Educate yourself for gods sake, you want to know how trustworthy and truthful the media are? It's easy, just go to google and search for 'tabloid libel payouts' I doubt it, but it may open your eyes a little ".
Bloody cheek!!
So oh mr knowledgable why did the Minister INCHARGE decide to sack her? Did he listen to the papers? Or did he make an INFORMED decision based on the investigation his very own department carried out?
I get tired myself when people like YOU bleat on and on and on and on, about the papers are this and the papers are that....poppycock.
Yes most of what I know about the case can be down to what the papers write, but I saw with my own eyes a Minister take a long hard look at this case, which he investigated, and then sacked her with immediate effect.
Of course YOU ignore that fact as much as you like, as you seemed to the last time we had a very similar conversation on here about baby P, and the tossers who ignored that childs desperate need for help. When you stated about the social workers in the case and how we did not know anything about the case, blah blah. Yet....when the evidence came out and social workers were sacked and Harringay were slated, I never saw you make one more point.
A bit like this time no doubt when Shoesmith goes to court and gets found out to be the greedy nasty bit of work she is, and the Minister wil be found to have acted correctly and within the law.
Will you be another one to come on here and appologise? I wont hold me breath on that one, otherwise after the last time I would still be holding it.
Get off your high horse over the paper issues fgs, anyone would think they held absolute power over the people....you have your views and I will have mine.
Now where is Ed Balls comments on this case again?
Bloody cheek!!
So oh mr knowledgable why did the Minister INCHARGE decide to sack her? Did he listen to the papers? Or did he make an INFORMED decision based on the investigation his very own department carried out?
I get tired myself when people like YOU bleat on and on and on and on, about the papers are this and the papers are that....poppycock.
Yes most of what I know about the case can be down to what the papers write, but I saw with my own eyes a Minister take a long hard look at this case, which he investigated, and then sacked her with immediate effect.
Of course YOU ignore that fact as much as you like, as you seemed to the last time we had a very similar conversation on here about baby P, and the tossers who ignored that childs desperate need for help. When you stated about the social workers in the case and how we did not know anything about the case, blah blah. Yet....when the evidence came out and social workers were sacked and Harringay were slated, I never saw you make one more point.
A bit like this time no doubt when Shoesmith goes to court and gets found out to be the greedy nasty bit of work she is, and the Minister wil be found to have acted correctly and within the law.
Will you be another one to come on here and appologise? I wont hold me breath on that one, otherwise after the last time I would still be holding it.
Get off your high horse over the paper issues fgs, anyone would think they held absolute power over the people....you have your views and I will have mine.
Now where is Ed Balls comments on this case again?
Quote by kentswingers777
" Educate yourself for gods sake, you want to know how trustworthy and truthful the media are? It's easy, just go to google and search for 'tabloid libel payouts' I doubt it, but it may open your eyes a little ".
Bloody cheek!!
So oh mr knowledgable why did the Minister INCHARGE decide to sack her? Did he listen to the papers? Or did he make an INFORMED decision based on the investigation his very own department carried out?
Either of those two reasons seem plausible to me, how about I suggest another one? Public outcry was so great he offered a sacrificial lamb to turn attention away from his own and the government's failings?
I get tired myself when people like YOU bleat on and on and on and on, about the papers are this and the papers are that....poppycock.
Yes most of what I know about the case can be down to what the papers write, but I saw with my own eyes a Minister take a long hard look at this case, which he investigated, and then sacked her with immediate effect.
Again, the point is that you did'nt 'see a minister take a long hard look at anything' with your own eyes did you? You read it in a paper or watched the Ed Balls soundbite the news channels broadcast.
Of course YOU ignore that fact as much as you like, as you seemed to the last time we had a very similar conversation on here about baby P, and the tossers who ignored that childs desperate need for help. When you stated about the social workers in the case and how we did not know anything about the case, blah blah. Yet....when the evidence came out and social workers were sacked and Harringay were slated, I never saw you make one more point.
I did not ignore any facts, i and others spent a long time providing links to relevant parts of the case that were not being printed, such as the disguise of injuries, the fact that the police and CPS twice failed to find enough evidence to charge anyone with cruelty, not to mention Dave_Notts utter destruction of the 'social workers made 60 visits myth' You chose to ignore these facts because i can only imagine they don't serve to demonise social workers as much as you'd enjoy. If i remember correctly, I backed away from that discussion long before the review had been carried out or anyone was sacked, i did this for one reason, I cannot debate with people who advocate violence or any other punitive measures against those not yet proven guilty of anything, time, the law and a judge will tell whether the people sacked were done so legally and with good reason, not a media hyped witch hunt and not those with an axe to grind against social workers. That's how things work in a civilized country.
A bit like this time no doubt when Shoesmith goes to court and gets found out to be the greedy nasty bit of work she is, and the Minister wil be found to have acted correctly and within the law.
Your prejudice is staggering and plainly obvious to see, you know absolutely nothing about this person, this case and the circumstances behind it, short of what has been fed to you by the gutter press. Open your eyes, no one is actually saying your wrong, i believe all anyone has said is to wait until the full facts are given, unfortunately you are not going to find those in any of your usual choice of reading material.
Will you be another one to come on here and appologise? I wont hold me breath on that one, otherwise after the last time I would still be holding it.
Yep, you'll be holding your breath, i would never apologise for being fair, open minded and even handed, i tend to prefer that to blind acceptance, hatred and ignorance.
Get off your high horse over the paper issues fgs, anyone would think they held absolute power over the people....you have your views and I will have mine.
I don't have a problem with that at all, you have your own opinion's, i will defend to the death your right to have them, but and it's a huge but, i'll also challenge those i feel are based on ignorance and stupidity.
Now where is Ed Balls comments on this case again?
And you trust a political creature who at the same time he was taking this action and 'reacting to public outcry' was being lauded as a possible leadership challenger?
So any response to the rest of the post I made above? Did you discover that an awful lot of the 'facts' papers print have been proven in law not to be 'facts' at all but utter fabrication, punished by huge compensation orders and costs?
Staffs your comment " how about I suggest another one? Public outcry was so great he offereda sacrificial lamb to turn attention away from his own and the government's failings " ?
What the heck do you base that one on, or is that just a snipe at Ed Balls. As his name suggests, at least he has some balls.
No I do not know what his investigation was, but the conclusion is pretty obvious, he sacked her.
Now if you are really telling me that an educated clever Minister like this guy is, decides at a whim to sack someone who he obviously knew would try for compensation, on the basis of using her as a " sacrificial lamb ", then you really must be up the wrong gum tree.
What about this one....he was called to Downing Street by the PM, to explain this tragedy with regards to baby P. He is then ordered to hold an in depth investigation into Harringays workings and Shoesmiths involvement.
He then finds out that she and her department have been negligent in this childs then decides to sack her for gross misconduct, of which he is entitled to do?
That seems to me much nearer the mark than your suggestion. Still we will wait and see eh? But whatever the outcome she will NEVER work in childrens services again. Who would touch this smug arrogant woman?
So she may well end up getting " blood money " from our ridiculous tribunal system, but her career is finished.
Yes I know it is the parents that ultimately are to blame but....and here is the but....Social services are there to protect children from further harm, and this child was under Harringays direction, and they failed. Whatever has happened we have a dead child in a grave, that because of incompetence from people at Harringay, could and should have been saved, and that is the worst thing about this whole sorry case.
What the heck do you base that one on, or is that just a snipe at Ed Balls. As his name suggests, at least he has some balls.
No I do not know what his investigation was, but the conclusion is pretty obvious, he sacked her.
Now if you are really telling me that an educated clever Minister like this guy is, decides at a whim to sack someone who he obviously knew would try for compensation, on the basis of using her as a " sacrificial lamb ", then you really must be up the wrong gum tree.
What about this one....he was called to Downing Street by the PM, to explain this tragedy with regards to baby P. He is then ordered to hold an in depth investigation into Harringays workings and Shoesmiths involvement.
He then finds out that she and her department have been negligent in this childs then decides to sack her for gross misconduct, of which he is entitled to do?
That seems to me much nearer the mark than your suggestion. Still we will wait and see eh? But whatever the outcome she will NEVER work in childrens services again. Who would touch this smug arrogant woman?
So she may well end up getting " blood money " from our ridiculous tribunal system, but her career is finished.
Yes I know it is the parents that ultimately are to blame but....and here is the but....Social services are there to protect children from further harm, and this child was under Harringays direction, and they failed. Whatever has happened we have a dead child in a grave, that because of incompetence from people at Harringay, could and should have been saved, and that is the worst thing about this whole sorry case.
