Sharon Spewsmith cant get a job

biggaz26

I think the bottom line in all this is that Haringay had been pulled up for the failings in the system before. Shoesmith is ultimately responsible for those failings.

As I understand it, the recommendations made after Victoria Colombe was killed had not been implimented to help prevent similar situations happening.

Shoesmith being top of the tree had overall responsibility and there for had to go. Having said that, the majority of the good British public wanted a head to roll and. as she was named in most papers as the person responsible. none of those calling for a head would be satisfied until she was gone.

For me it was more important to find out the route causes for this appaling case and sort those out first. If it then showed that she was a part of that her and all others involved in not protecting this poor unfortunate child should have gone. Including the doctor who missed his broken back!

Just my thoughts

G

bap98189

Mistymaid wrote: »

Maybe, to some extent, she is the scapegoat - maybe others ought to have gone as well, but sorry, these kids died. These kids would have begged, pleaded, screamed and suffered. Are you seriously saying nobody was to blame???? That nobody should have been held responsible?

How about the parents. After all they were the ones that killed the child.

Because this system, these systems are set up by somebody and if, as has now been shown, they are seriously flawed, then heads should roll.

Do you expect a system to be in place that would prevent this from ever happening? Because I don't. I think it would be impossible to have such a system. I do think it is the job of social services to do all they can to minimise such occurrences, but to suggest the should be able to prevent every single incidengt of child abuse is just ridiculous.

Am I the only one, who, had I been in charge, couldn't have slept without hearing these kids beg for help in my nightmares and know I'd failed them?

If that were the case, I doubt you would last very long as a social worker. I have no doubt it is one of those jobs where you have to learn to block out your disgust at cases of horrible abuse or you would quickly end up in the loony bin.

Money_Grabber13579

andygb wrote: »

You just do not get it, do you? You have no idea of the number of people working for a department like the one SS worked for. You have no idea of the team structure, the managers in charge of those teams, and the duties of the head of Social Services. You also have no idea of the numbers of children and families - the case load, being handled, the complexity of the cases, and the way that the law sometimes prevents Social Services from taking action.
Children are killed and abused nearly every day in the UK,a very shocking and a very sad fact, but do we hear for the head of every Social Services department to be sacked?
The simple facts are, that "Baby P", was systematically tortured and then killed by two very evil people, who knew full well what they were doing. There were many mistakes made, by nearly every authority - Social Services, Police, Hospital.
However the press concentrated on two people - Shoesmith, and the foreign doctor, who was the last professional person to see "Baby P" alive.
Shoesmith had no contact with the family, and was probably not aware of the case, and the doctor, whilst not recognising the injuries, probably would not have been able to save "Baby P". There was barely any criticism of the Police - why?
Our popular press tries to encourage us to look for a scapegoat. Every incident must have a person to blame. The people most to blame in this case are the mother, and the boyfriend who inflicted the damage.

It doesn't matter how big the department is, Shoesmith was ultimately responsible for the running of it. You seem to be saying that she wasn't. If that was the case, then she wasn't needed. So she still shouldn't be there.

I think it's you that doesn't get how organisations work. Ultimately, the person at the top is responsible for the actions of the people below them. If the people below missed that Baby P was being tortured, then perhaps they didn't have enough training to spot it. Who's fault was that? Shoesmith's of course, because she was the one that was responsible for the staff below her. It doesn't matter that they didn't kill Baby P - but they were responsible for ensuring his welfare. They didn't do that, and so the responsibility lies with them.

Baby P's parents also got what they deserved.

kitekat

My sympathies lie entirely with baby Peter who was tortured to death and not some stuck up arrogant nobody who wouldnt know real life if it hit her between the eyes.

Money_Grabber13579

I'm guessing all those who think Shoesmith shouldn't have been sacked are civil servants. They want the power but not the responsibility. They go hand in hand, and you can't have one without the other.

That's the problem with the whole public sector. I will be working in the private sector when I finish uni, and if I co*k up, I'm out on my ear. That's the way it works. And there shouldn't be a different set of rules for the public sector.

If we use the banks as an example. When RBS collapsed, would you argue Sir Fred shouldn't have gone? Using the logic above, RBS was a huge bank, and he can't have known what all the bankers below him were doing. Therefore he shouldn't have been responsible. (I'm waiting for all those that say now, but that's different. It's not different at all. The head person is ultimately responsible.)

RiverStar

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Just think, it is only the fact that they are in clink which prevents Baby P's parents from reading this thread and baying for SS's blood because the system had let them down and allowed Baby P to be murdered. Perhaps we should let them out to join in the outrage. After all, for them it is not hypothetical.

Excuse me,'the system has let them down'...They shouldn't have murdered the litle boy in the first place, they deserve to be in jail, deprived of normal day to day life, just as baby P will never grow up. Anyway, I do agree with most posters that Shoesmith is being used as a scapegoat (someone has to be blamed after all!)

lynzpower

RiverStar wrote: »

Excuse me,'the system has let them down'...They shouldn't have murdered the litle boy in the first place, they deserve to be in jail, deprived of normal day to day life, just as baby P will never grow up. Anyway, I do agree with most posters that Shoesmith is being used as a scapegoat (someone has to be blamed after all!)

I think Dvardy was being ironic

RiverStar

kitekat wrote: »

My sympathies lie entirely with baby Peter who was tortured to death and not some stuck up arrogant nobody who wouldnt know real life if it hit her between the eyes.

I agree, if Shoesmith's caseload was horrendous, baby P would just be a number to her, another file to look at... that's what's wrong in today's society-people are just numbers especially to those higher up the ladder ie not probably in direct contact with the families. She should lose her job as it was ultimately in her job description to be in charge of those under her, but really the social workers are not at home to see what baby P suffered are they? Those moron parents would be on best behaviour during visits I imagine! As are drug users, alcohics and such like, it's the world we live in.

RiverStar

lynzpower wrote: »

I think Dvardy was being ironic

Hi Lynz, probably, just felt a moment of anger there after reading and had to comment.
DVardy apologies if were trying to add some humour.

lynzpower

RiverStar wrote: »

I agree, if Shoesmith's caseload was horrendous, baby P would just be a number to her, another file to look at... that's what's wrong in today's society-people are just numbers especially to those higher up the ladder ie not probably in direct contact with the families. She should lose her job as it was ultimately in her job description to be in charge of those under her, but really the social workers are not at home to see what baby P suffered are they? Those moron parents would be on best behaviour during visits I imagine! As are drug users, alcohics and such like, it's the world we live in.

I had a manager once. Oh man she was rubbish. Really poor. Anyway. The longer time she spent away from service users the more scared she seemed to get.

I had a very successful episode with a service user, basiclaly they came out the other side of some hard times, and mums parenting had gone from strangth to strength with her increased confidence/ sure start etc. So clinet- lets call her Ann, wanted to have a quick talk with my manager to basically let her know how useful the process was and to say thank you to the department for what we had done for her and her daughters. She also wanted my manager to know how she had experienced me and our relationship.

Manager refused to come out of her office for this 2 minute chat- saying to me- tell her to write to me. Im like come on, she just wants to say thanks, cant she do that- manager said yes, she can write in. Client quite rightly felt uncomfortable with this response and thought she was doing something "wrong" by asking to speak to her.

:wall: If that manager is reading this now SHAME ON YOU