Sharon Spewsmith cant get a job

KILL_BILL

You know that woman who was head of childrens services who got sacked over baby peter

she maintains that she is finacially runied and cant get a job

what about a job at macdonalds or a cleaners job etc

or is she to above herself to apply for jobs like these ?

sad_dog_lady

good, she deserves to reap that, responsabilty = high wages.... she should of saved or if not up to the job, resigned

DVardysShadow

Actually, I feel rather sorry for her. The government, it seems, had the Ofsted report changed, in order to be able to sack her and appease the likes of the 2 posters above. If people other than Baby Peter's killers are to take the blame, the whole of society should hang its head in shame, rather than absolving itself by scapegoating the person the cheap end of the media choose to blame.

Mods, move to Discussion Time?

Anihilator

She was made scapegoat.

If she had genuinely been underperforming and this was backed by independent evidence fair enough sack her, but the government ensured that a report was made which allowed a scapegoat who mattered enough but not enough to effect them was chosen.

The woman had brillant appraisals and was turning round a hideous department and other than baby P there seems to be no other reason to sack her.

dmg24

KILL_BILL wrote: »

You know that woman who was head of childrens services who got sacked over baby peter

she maintains that she is finacially runied and cant get a job

what about a job at macdonalds or a cleaners job etc

or is she to above herself to apply for jobs like these ?

How do you know that she has not applied?

Is it any of your business?

TEDDYRUKSPIN

Actually, she would be difficult to employ at this current moment of time. So she is actually correct to try and clear her name. No company will take her on due to the backlash.
With any company or corporation, more than one person is always responsible. This goes down to the lower staff.

So...yes, she is an escape goat. Unfortunate but true. But many others at this moment out of a job.

sad_dog_lady

how much was her sallary? i bet it was 100k. or more ...... its that for a reason she had responsability to that poor child and the other kids that slip through the net, if i had her job i would of made my team more accountable as they obviosly had barely any common sense.

MrsTinks

She had a responcibility, as did the many layers of people below her - and probably people above and beside her.

Should she have been sacked? You know... I haven't a clue because I don't have access to her files and appraisals etc... oh... and I'm not her employer

lynzpower

sad_dog_lady wrote: »

how much was her sallary? i bet it was 100k. or more ...... its that for a reason she had responsability to that poor child and the other kids that slip through the net, if i had her job i would of made my team more accountable as they obviosly had barely any common sense.

Sorry, do you know the first thing about how social services works?

She would have been head of a division. That division would have at least 8 teams in dealing with childrens work. Of those 8 teams, they are likely to have a minumum of 10 members of frontline staff in. Of those 10 members of frontline staff, they will have 30 cases each minimum in Haringey. Of those 30 cases, one can assume a number of them have more than one child. I worked in another borough, I had a case load of 40 odd children at any one time.

I could barely keep track how is the manager of the division supposed to keep track - CLUE- they arnt. Therefore it falls it was not Shoesmiths reposnbility. Peters parents killed him, not her.It was not her job to protect him, there were a number of nmanagers below who sohuld have taken the chop. I remember vividly havig a child on my caseload i wanted to be taken into care, my manager said no, lo and behold she appeared in hospital with further injurys. This was my line managers fault- not mineand certianly not the head of division.

The problem with haringey is it is a very rough area in the main. Firearms, drug use gang warfare and domestic violence are almost pandemic ( i have worked with people who have wrked there) This leads to high staff burnout and IIRC lots of the staff there were temp/agency contractors - many of whom will have come from overseas.

Another issue is that if you want to really poijnt the finger, point it up to our freinds who haed decided that middle managers in social work can have "performance related pay" for sticking to budgets. What this inevitably means is that children are kept out of the care system ( costing 500+ per week) and middle managers get a bonus. Im sure moneysavers will agree this is fundamentally wrong.

junkmayle

I think it would be poetic justice if Steven Barker (under his new taxpayers identity) got a job at the care home that Shoesmith ends up at. Its not the fact that she was not directly responsible for Peters death, its the way that she conducts herself, treating his horrible death as she might treat a spilt cup of coffee. Perhaps the whole department should have been fired and start again from scratch.

Lynzpower - I cant see how you can berate Sad Dog Lady for not knowing how social services works when you dont know how a spell checker works.

lynzpower

Lynzpower - I cant see how you can berate Sad Dog Lady for not knowing how social services works when you dont know how a spell checker works.

Im not berating. Sad dog lady clearly doesnt know the first thing abut the structure of the government that she may well pay for out of her taxes.

I do not use a spell checker. I know how to spell thank you but type only with one hand as I have sustained a major injury to my right hand recently.