What a load of Eds....

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Guess it's a case of the law and justice being two different things.

what is certainly true, is that without law, there is no justice

vivatifosi

I'm not sure about how this is being reported. The figure of £600k to her is being widely quoted. Yet the BBC states:

However, it would appear the package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in a 2011 ruling in the Court of Appeal. He suggested Ms Shoesmith was entitled to a minimum of three months' salary plus pensions contributions.
Three months' salary would have been about £33,000.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404


So how do you get from £33,000 to £600k?



The two extreme views would be that a) the council massively overpaid, or b) the lawyers took over £550k. More likely though, she has had her pension reinstated, which would be a total non-story. At the time of her sacking, she was on about £130k and she had worked in local government 35 years, so a pension contribution of c£550k would be entirely feasible, in fact, probably a lot more.

michaels

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm not sure about how this is being reported. The figure of £600k to her is being widely quoted. Yet the BBC states:

However, it would appear the package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in a 2011 ruling in the Court of Appeal. He suggested Ms Shoesmith was entitled to a minimum of three months' salary plus pensions contributions.
Three months' salary would have been about £33,000.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404


So how do you get from £33,000 to £600k?



The two extreme views would be that a) the council massively overpaid, or b) the lawyers took over £550k. More likely though, she has had her pension reinstated, which would be a total non-story. At the time of her sacking, she was on about £130k and she had worked in local government 35 years, so a pension contribution of c£550k would be entirely feasible, in fact, probably a lot more.

I think there is slightly more to this, last night it was a 'govt source' suggesting 600k was the 'private settlement'...because of course the reason for the settlement was Balls' incompetence so a large settlement to someone that the public see as 'culpable' as a result of a mistake Balls made whilst in office is just the story they would like to see.

Yorkie1

They were citing £300K at the Professor this morning, and he said he very much doubted it was anything like that (i.e. significantly lower). Amazing how the figures vary according to which report you read ...

ILW

CLAPTON wrote: »

sadly children are killed quite often by their parents: roughly one a day

often they are known to be a risk by the social service/police/medical people etc

who should we sack?

the head of social services; the head of the medical authority; local top policemen, Council CEO, government ministers, chief constable?

and / or the front line staff who dealt with the child?

if we do sack them should we do follow the legal due process ?

should we only sack a person when there is a media campaign?

should we only sack some-one when a top politician is fearful for his job and a newbe opposition leader is pointing out it happened in a Labour council


does such a campaign improve the prospect of recruiting good quality people in places like Haringey?

does the campaign save any children from harm?

Shoesmith proved she was not quality. Her dept failed miserably and those that take the responsibility and salary should also carry the can.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

Shoesmith proved she was not quality. Her dept failed miserably and those that take the responsibility and salary should also carry the can.

I haven't walked in her footsteps so I lack your certainty although I fully understand where you are coming from.

There is a difference from sacking her and a campaign of hatred.

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

I think there is slightly more to this, lat night it was a 'govt source' suggesting 600k was the 'private settlement'...because of course the reason for the settlement was Ball's incompetence so a large settlement to someone that the public see as 'culpable' as a result of a mistake Ball's made whilst in office is just the story they would like to see.

I am no fan of Shoesmith, but I do wonder how much of this is supposition. Much of what the papers write proves that righteous indignation sells. Maybe the number is untrue, maybe there's something else (like a pension in there).., maybe it is right and we should be shocked. I don't know. If the government - or someone in or close to government - is leaking the result of a private settlement then that stinks every bit as much as Ed Balls (not a fan of him either).

dealer_wins

The people directly responsible for baby P's death were those convicted. The people in-directly responsible were the social workers in contact with the "family", who for some reason I will never live long enough to understand didnt think he was at risk!!

So if anyone was to blame (apart from those convicted) it should be the social workers in direct contact with baby P.

Not excusing the head of social services, but she has to oversea 100s of cases and cant be responsible for every parent who decides to torture and kill their own children, however sick that is?

chewmylegoff

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm not sure about how this is being reported. The figure of £600k to her is being widely quoted. Yet the BBC states:

However, it would appear the package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in a 2011 ruling in the Court of Appeal. He suggested Ms Shoesmith was entitled to a minimum of three months' salary plus pensions contributions.
Three months' salary would have been about £33,000.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723404


So how do you get from £33,000 to £600k?



The two extreme views would be that a) the council massively overpaid, or b) the lawyers took over £550k. More likely though, she has had her pension reinstated, which would be a total non-story. At the time of her sacking, she was on about £130k and she had worked in local government 35 years, so a pension contribution of c£550k would be entirely feasible, in fact, probably a lot more.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if her legal fees were fairly astronomical, given that the process has involved a High Court case, an Court of Appeal finding overturning the original outcome and a (refused) attempt to appeal the Court of Appeal's findings, plus an Employment Tribunal process (although obviously that was settled). I don't know how long the two court hearings lasted for but trials are extremely expensive.

However, I don't think the compensation figures being bandied around would include most of the costs as presumably when the Court of Appeal found in her favour it would have decided what the other parties were required to pay to her in respect of legal fees incurred in relation to the Court hearings.

Obviously the total cost to the taxpayer of the fall-out of the decision to remove shoesmith is much larger than just the compensation figure and shoesmith's legal fees as the treasury sols, ofsted and harringey council will all have accumulated enormous legal fees during the process. Someone who can be bothered (a journalist i expect) will make a FOIA request in due course I expect...

macaque_2

michaels wrote: »

Even if I (or you) are grossly negligent at work the law says due process needs to be followed in our dismissal. By all means challenge the law and lobby for it to be changed but it seems odd criticise a payment due under the law of the land?

If Ed did not follow due process, he was wrong and Sharon should be entitled to fair treatment. If her sacking was unjustified, then she should either be given her job back or paid fair compensation (X months wages). If the reasons for sacking her were valid (and this does not seem to be in dispute) common sense suggests that compensation should only reflect her genuine loss resulting from lack of due process. At best she might have stayed in the job for another month or two and payment for that is all she deserves.


These days the term due process seems to have more to do with Lawyers 'dues' that its legitimate purpose. When our legal system delivers perverse and irrational outcomes it confounds people and creates mystery. This may be good for drumming up business for lawyers but it is not justice. It is also not good for their image.