Jump to content

Sharon Shoesmith to get £600,000 plus


Guest 1footinthegrave

Recommended Posts

Guest 1footinthegrave
So there we are yet again, preside over and do a s*it job, but get £600,000 plus pay off, and it's going to come from you and me. >:-(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the size of the payout is questionable.

 

However! - the issue that the Judge focussed on for a fair bit of his judgement was the illegality if Ed Balls' decision to sack her, thereby focussing attention on her and away from the truly woeful political oversight of such departments by Ed Balls and his band of useless "brothers".

 

This was a blatant scapegoating exercise by Labour when it was in power (or at least occupied the buildings) and this Judge has been brave enough to flag it up.

 

From the BBC:-

 

"Lord Neuberger had suggested the Department for Education should contribute to any payout for Ms Shoesmith by her employer Haringey Council.

 

His judgement said: "It would be entirely appropriate for Haringey to seek a voluntary contribution from the secretary of state whose unlawful directions gave rise to the problems." "

 

So we have a legal judgement that states her sacking was an illegal act by Ed Balls.

 

Whilst I believe she is guilty of a dereliction of duty, and indeed dereliction of her duty of care, she should have been dealt with by the "system" - them we would have been able to see exactly how bad things were and why.

 

Ed Balls wanted the whole thing brushed under the carpet and so he took the illegal action that he did.

 

If he had not done that - she would have kept her job for a bit longer, been forced to justify her actions but her ultimate pay out for dismissal would have been just circa £33,000 or three months salary.

 

 

Ed Balls - was ever a man so justifiably named.

 

 

:-S

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case the pressure of budget restraints on all social services throughout the UK are such that none of them have enough quality social workers or budget to do the job properly and as that does not look like changing anytime soon we can expect more of the same.

 

Highly qualified and experienced social workers are leaving the service because they care too much and are unable to live with the excessive case loads and a budget led service rather than a needs led service, and that does not look like ending anytime soon.

 

That leaves mainly the inexperienced, with insufficient supervision again due to staff shortages and cutbacks who can only cope with excessive case workloads by trying to prioritise and with so many adults being very convincing liars and no time to investigate further it is perhaps surprising, and a credit to those remaining in the service, that there are not more incidents of abuse coming to light.

 

We should all beware of getting older and needing support as more and more funding from an ever tighter budget is shoveled at children's services to try to avoid more media hysteria when it goes wrong and so the elderly care budget gets less and less money year on year.

 

Personally, whilst I didn't ever warm to the woman, I do consider that Sharon Shoesmith is easily entitled to £600k compensation for the political manner of her dismissal and the destruction of her career and reputation.

 

Perhaps it might make other local authorities start to look elsewhere for reasons of failure and ways to put it right rather than point fingers at scapegoats to distract from their own failings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1footinthegrave
Errr, and there was me thinking she was in charge of that department, a department of ongoing failures, and being paid £130,000 a year for the privilege, but no doubt "lessons will have been learnt" as the same old tired phrase always gets trotted out. It's long overdue that people who do a crap job get treated in exactly the same manner, the bloody sack end of, and as they used to say on Bullseye, the BFH and bugger all else. If I'd have been a crap truck driver and got the boot why the hell would I expect to be re-employed as one, never mind get shed loads of compensation, the same rules should apply here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1footinthegrave - 2013-10-29 9:46 AM

 

Errr, and there was me thinking she was in charge of that department, a department of ongoing failures, and being paid £130,000 a year for the privilege.

 

In charge of the department, and in control of how the budget is spent, but no control over the size of the allocated budget within which she had to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough

Decisions such as this are vital for the wellbeing of a certain section of society. They give a small band of perpetual moaners and conspiracy freaks something to get their teeth into and have a really good whinge about. This must be good for them as it exercises their brains and gives meaning to their lives.

 

Without cases like this they'd be back on the subject of Muslims and the EU and we'd all have to suffer.

 

Every cloud ........................................ ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1footinthegrave - 2013-10-28 10:40 PM

 

So there we are yet again, preside over and do a s*it job, but get £600,000 plus pay off, and it's going to come from you and me. >:-(

 

 

Where do you get the £600,000 figure from ?

 

The BBC say the amount was confidential and even they don't seem to know what it is.

 

 

:-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1footinthegrave
malc d - 2013-10-29 10:43 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-10-28 10:40 PM

 

So there we are yet again, preside over and do a s*it job, but get £600,000 plus pay off, and it's going to come from you and me. >:-(

 

 

Where do you get the £600,000 figure from ?

 

The BBC say the amount was confidential and even they don't seem to know what it is.

 

 

:-|

 

Your right, a clause of confidentiality, apparently she was after £1,000,000 perhaps she's got that hence the settlement being kept secret, considering it's the tax payer that picks up the bill why on earth should that be the case, you folk obviously enjoy paying your ever increasing taxes without protest or question, which is of course what they rely on. How is it you folks cannot join up the dots. (!)

 

And I ask again why on earth is someone who is paid handsomely whilst presiding over a systematic failing organization gettting such a payout regardless of what that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
1footinthegrave - 2013-10-29 10:51 AM

 

How is it you folks cannot join up the dots. (!)

 

 

It's because we're not as well educated, well informed and as blisteringly intelligent as you Onefoot.

 

You really must learn to be more tolerant of us lesser mortals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1footinthegrave
Had Enough - 2013-10-29 11:04 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-10-29 10:51 AM

 

How is it you folks cannot join up the dots. (!)

 

 

It's because we're not as well educated, well informed and as blisteringly intelligent as you Onefoot.

 

You really must learn to be more tolerant of us lesser mortals.

 

I'll try my hardest in future, sorry ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1footinthegrave - 2013-10-29 10:51 AM

 

 

 

And I ask again why on earth is someone who is paid handsomely whilst presiding over a systematic failing organization gettting such a payout regardless of what that is.

 

 

I think the answer to that question is :

 

Because she held a senior position in the public sector, which,( together with the BBC ) have a bottomless pit of money, for which, it seems to me, no-one is accountable.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1footinthegrave
Ah the good old BBC that has paid out to former staff, of £276,833,465, is said to include some money awarded in lieu of holiday owed, deputy director general Mark Byford was paid £949,000 as "compensation for loss of office" in 2010-2011. Nice work if you can get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the 'legalities' surrounding her 'removal' the outcome was correct.  She was behind the desk where the 'buck stops'.  It's time those in positions of 'control' and who fail badly in doing their job were held to account...and it doesn't get much worse than failing to stop the death by abuse of a young child.  In this case it seems she will be handsomely rewarded because of a 'procedural' error (balls up by Balls) regardless of the fact that she presided over a dysfunctional department that failed in the most appalling way..........and the 'taxpayer' ends up paying.

 

If the woman had any decency she would have resigned out of shame and disappeared instead of what she has been/is doing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Its all part of the breeding for benefits culture *-)..........

 

You give the feckless and idle the opportunity of an income just for making babies.................why then do the intelligentsia wonder that they've turned out to be feckless and idle parents? :-S.....................

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...

This thread has gone through whinging about:

 

Over paid, incompetent social workers.

Ed Balls

The BBC

The Public sector as a whole...

 

..and now, onto families in receipt of benefits... *-)

 

Don't you lot EVER get bored of just wasting your days, going 'round and around in circles on here, moaning amongst yourselves?... :-S

 

"...Enjoy yourself..It's later than you think.."......

 

The clock IS ticking! ;-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
pepe63 - 2013-10-29 1:10 PM

 

So...

This thread has gone through whinging about:

 

Over paid, incompetent social workers.

Ed Balls

The BBC

The Public sector as a whole...

 

..and now, onto families in receipt of benefits... *-)

 

Don't you lot EVER get bored of just wasting your days, going 'round and around in circles on here, moaning amongst yourselves?... :-S

 

"...Enjoy yourself..It's later than you think.."......

 

The clock IS ticking! ;-)

 

 

Spoilsport *-).......................don't you watch the BBC Pepe?..............Repeats are all the rage ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think it is "whinging" to flag up a dysfunctional system overseen by central government that when it fails, the Minister in Charge protects his own backside by sacking a senior official HIS department approved and gave huge sums of tax payers money too.

 

Ed Balls is a disgrace - and the point many miss is that IF the proper due process had been used - she would have been accountable and more of the truth as to just how bad things were would have come out.

 

Instead - Ed Balls sacked her to save his own ar$e.

 

THAT is what was said in the judgement - and that is why she walks with circa £600,000 rather than the£33,000 (c three months salary) that her Terms and Conditions dictated.

 

By doing what Ed Balls did - he opened the door to a wrongful dismissal case.

 

A case that this woman has won because she WAS wrongly dismissed by a sad apology of an individual more keen on hushing things up than actually wanting people to hear just how it was that he and his fellow incompetents managed to fail Baby P.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1footinthegrave
pepe63 - 2013-10-29 1:10 PM

 

So...

This thread has gone through whinging about:

 

Over paid, incompetent social workers.

Ed Balls

The BBC

The Public sector as a whole...

 

..and now, onto families in receipt of benefits... *-)

 

Don't you lot EVER get bored of just wasting your days, going 'round and around in circles on here, moaning amongst yourselves?... :-S

 

"...Enjoy yourself..It's later than you think.."......

 

The clock IS ticking! ;-)

 

 

Err.........why not take your own advice then. :D :D and let the rest of us moan in peace. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2013-10-29 2:11 PM

 

I do not think it is "whinging" to flag up a dysfunctional system overseen by central government that when it fails, the Minister in Charge protects his own backside by sacking a senior official HIS department approved and gave huge sums of tax payers money too.

 

Ed Balls is a disgrace - and the point many miss is that IF the proper due process had been used - she would have been accountable and more of the truth as to just how bad things were would have come out.

 

Instead - Ed Balls sacked her to save his own ar$e.

 

THAT is what was said in the judgement - and that is why she walks with circa £600,000 rather than the£33,000 (c three months salary) that her Terms and Conditions dictated.

 

By doing what Ed Balls did - he opened the door to a wrongful dismissal case.

 

A case that this woman has won because she WAS wrongly dismissed by a sad apology of an individual more keen on hushing things up than actually wanting people to hear just how it was that he and his fellow incompetents managed to fail Baby P.

 

Clive, you are right. Regardless of what many of us feel about the morality of the woman concerned, or the rights and wrongs of the case, we are bound by the legality of law and Contracts. Balls did indeed screw it up by jumping to get a good headline, and I note is now bleating how it is all wrong. A simple inquiry to his legal team may have told him what would happen, but of course he never listens and always thinks he knows best. Usual deal from a total idiot. Just wait till he is in charge of the Treasury!!! He should be the one to pay the money as it was his responsibility for the screwup, a word he seems keen to assign to others who fail.

 

As with other current events as soon as we allow witchhunts and trial by mob rule, we lose the plot totally. If it is felt a Law is wrong, or not covering things correctly, then it should be changed, not bypassed to suit popular opinion.

 

Yes, public sector organisations are in need of a total overhaul as they have grandiose ideas of their own importance. Any organsation that has no requirement to budget its costs will always be badly run and when the taxpayer is the funding agency, then who cares??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she was accountable for the mess, then she should have been called to explain and pay the price through the proper channels. Not by responding to the media hype by sacking her without a proper hearing which would have determined whether she was good enough at her job. We have Employment Laws that protect workers including this woman. And, thankfully, the Justice system worked.

 

The woman has been pilloried from all sides without the chance to defend herself. That's not a proper justice system. She stood up to the politicians and has been vindicated. We should be looking at 'point and fire' Ed B.

 

It was a sickening chain of events that saw the sad demise of Baby P. Nothing can put that right for the little boy. It's heartbreaking that society can treat children like that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...