Sharon Spewsmith cant get a job

Paws

But don't you sign up to me made accountable when you take on a job like this?

It's about accountability isn't it?

DVardysShadow

Paws wrote: »

But don't you sign up to me made accountable when you take on a job like this?

It's about accountability isn't it?

Then sack the Queen, she is ultimately responsible.

DVardysShadow

junkmayle wrote: »

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.

Junkmayle, I usually appreciate your posts. But this is nonsense. You don't need to be able to spell to comment on this csae. Would a spell checker have saved Baby P?

lynzpower

Or Ed balls

MrsTinks

Where do you stop then? With her? With the MP for the area? The PM? The people who voted for them? By voting we accepted responcibility surely? And those who didn't vote accepted responcibility too by not voting... so... everyone could be responcibility.
IMO she should have been sacked IF someone had placed the case file on her desk and said: "This child is at risk - we need to remove him ASAP" and she said no... if someone further down the chain made that call then THEY should be sacked. Or if she failed to provide the tools/training/whatever to enable people to take that action then she should certainly be investigated and maybe diciplined.

jamespir

it fell on her shoulders if you cant control youre staff or use common sence to workout what was going on you simply dont deserve that job

1984ReturnsForReal_2

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 ?

McDonalds is working with children & cleaning she may have key holder responsibilities. :eek:

DVardysShadow

You know something [waving in the air and pointing in no direction in particular]. Those who take the hardest line on Sharon Shoesmith are the ones I would least trust to make a better job of it.

Anihilator

jamespir wrote: »

it fell on her shoulders if you cant control youre staff or use common sence to workout what was going on you simply dont deserve that job

Oh dear

Firstly as the head she won't have mean responsible for everyone under her. Authority will be delegated and only certain incidents would reach her.

Secondly the law is not based on common sense, she cant go around confiscating children as she wants without due legal cause. Unfortunately thinking someone is a bad parent isnt that. there must be evidence.

Yes she should have been severly rebuked and ensured her department learnt from their mistakes but she is a scapegoat and people like her cant be held responsible for the actions of murders. Its completely unthinkable any parent would allow their child to be murdered.

junkmayle

If you have an injury, thats fair enough but someone worked really hard to write a spell checker to help people in your situation. I pointed it out simply because the social worker I enjoyed kicking back in thier box 5 years ago submitted all thier reports to the family court in exactly the same format. It was fun at first, making them look like complete morons, especially as they had the cheek to keep referring to themselves as 'professionals', but it soon ended up like shooting fish in a barrel and needless to say, they lost, big time. Back to the subject, I think that if someone is taking 100K of public money, if the !!!!!! hits the fan, I dont expect them to hide under the desk and bleat that they feel 'suicidal'. If Peters murder came totally out of the blue, I could understand but that family was well known and was able to deceive so-called intelligent social workers with ease. Personally, I think that foreign doctor has got off lightly too. Totally incompetant and should never doctor in this country again.