Poor Sharon Shoesmith????? Not.

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Sack them all?

I agree, sack the lot of them, lazy set of incompetent ers

 

[joe-90]

But who do you put in their place?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

someone who cares

 

[dextrous]

OK well who carries the can for this lot then? Sack them all? Someone must be in charge eh?

"Almost four children a week died or suffered a serious injury at home last year through neglect or abuse despite tougher child protection rules after the death of Baby P. "

It's not possible to wrap every child in cotton wool.

In the case of shoesmith, she was taking a salary but was failing to do her job of managing her department which may (just maybe) have been able to prevent this child being killed if she had being doing her job properly.

On the other side of the coin, what then do you suggest joe? That since there are always going to be kids that get killed, then we may as well throw in the towel and do nothing at all; other than sterilise everyone on a council estate?

 

[Infidel]

The problem seems to be her renumeration she was payed shedloads of wonga to head a department and failed miserably, not an uncommon occurrence.

But as the capitalist system in the UK dictates big money jobs go to mates, and fick off the rest of you.

 

[joe-90]

OK well who carries the can for this lot then? Sack them all? Someone must be in charge eh?

"Almost four children a week died or suffered a serious injury at home last year through neglect or abuse despite tougher child protection rules after the death of Baby P. "

It's not possible to wrap every child in cotton wool.

In the case of shoesmith, she was taking a salary but was failing to do her job of managing her department which may (just maybe) have been able to prevent this child being killed if she had being doing her job properly.

On the other side of the coin, what then do you suggest joe? That since there are always going to be kids that get killed, then we may as well throw in the towel and do nothing at all; other than sterilise everyone on a council estate?

I don't see why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this one case. There are hundreds every year. You can't just keep on sacking people because parents are rat-bags.

 

[dextrous]

The problem seems to be her renumeration she was payed shedloads of wonga to head a department and failed miserably, not an uncommon occurrence.

But as the capitalist system in the UK dictates big money jobs go to mates, and fick off the rest of you.

I may be being thick here, but she was a public employee

 

[dextrous]

I don't see why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this one case. There are hundreds every year. You can't just keep on sacking people because parents are rat-bags.

With respect, this is about sacking someone who has failed to do her job. To me, it's as simple as that.

And if I read your logic correctly, there shouldn't have been a job there for her or any "social worker" in the first place

 

[joe-90]

I don't see why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this one case. There are hundreds every year. You can't just keep on sacking people because parents are rat-bags.

With respect, this is about sacking someone who has failed to do her job. To me, it's as simple as that.

And if I read your logic correctly, there shouldn't have been a job there for her or any "social worker" in the first place

What about all the other unreported failures that happen each and every week? It's the parent - not society that needs sorting.

 

[dextrous]

I don't see why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this one case. There are hundreds every year. You can't just keep on sacking people because parents are rat-bags.

With respect, this is about sacking someone who has failed to do her job. To me, it's as simple as that.

And if I read your logic correctly, there shouldn't have been a job there for her or any "social worker" in the first place

What about all the other unreported failures that happen each and every week? It's the parent - not society that needs sorting.

The two are interlinked However, I am in agreement with you. In this incident, shoesmith was in a position which should have had an effect on the parent. Hence why she had to go.

 

[joe-90]

So every event (4 a week) should lead to a sacking? there are 34,000 children in England on the 'at risk' register. When one of them is killed by the parent someone should be sacked? There would be no bosses left! You are just being silly.

 

[dextrous]

So every event (4 a week) should lead to a sacking? there are 34,000 children in England on the 'at risk' register. When one of them is killed by the parent someone should be sacked? There would be no bosses left! You are just being silly.

You are missing the point. When one of them is killed by a parent, and this may well have been in part due to the failing of a system which somone is paid to manage, oversee, appraise the effectiveness of etc, then heads have to roll.

In cases where the deaths occur even though all the systems were in place and being well managed, then noone has failed to do their job, other than the parent.

 

[Lincsbodger]

...So why are we all hating this person?

Because she quite happily took £2000 A WEEK of taxpayers money to do a job, which when she then failed miserably at it and several children died, including Peter Conolly and Victoria Climbie, instead of taking the responsibility (which is why she was getting a fat wodge of cash in the first place), she wriggled and squirmed and handed out leaflets saying her department had met all its quality targets.

Clearly incompetent and incapable of both leadership and taking responsibility, she was a disaster from day one, and it took two dead kids to get rid of her.

When my tax money is spent employing people, i want them to be competent and responsible. Personally I wouldn't employ her as a Clippie on the Number 49 to Didsbury.

 

[joe-90]

So every event (4 a week) should lead to a sacking? there are 34,000 children in England on the 'at risk' register. When one of them is killed by the parent someone should be sacked? There would be no bosses left! You are just being silly.

You are missing the point. When one of them is killed by a parent, and this may well have been in part due to the failing of a system which somone is paid to manage, oversee, appraise the effectiveness of etc, then heads have to roll.

In cases where the deaths occur even though all the systems were in place and being well managed, then noone has failed to do their job, other than the parent.

But it's only when the press get a band wagon rolling that anyone even cares. How many others are equally to blame but get away with it? It's the parent - not the state that's to blame.

 

[joe-90]

...So why are we all hating this person?

Because she quite happily took £2000 A WEEK of taxpayers money to do a job, which when she then failed miserably at it and several children died, including Peter Conolly and Victoria Climbie, instead of taking the responsibility (which is why she was getting a fat wodge of cash in the first place), she wriggled and squirmed and handed out leaflets saying her department had met all its quality targets.

Clearly incompetent and incapable of both leadership and taking responsibility, she was a disaster from day one, and it took two dead kids to get rid of her.

When my tax money is spent employing people, i want them to be competent and responsible. Personally I wouldn't employ her as a Clippie on the Number 49 to Didsbury.

But you'll make her a millionaire all the same.