Solving the World's problems with common sense and a flamethrower.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Not Sacked - So What?

Yesterday, news sources were reporting that the unrepentant Mzzz Sharon Shoesmith of Haringey Social Sandalistas, had been removed from her posts. Many sites, including Pravda, spun this (at the time) as the lady concerned being sacked.

Turns out that she hasn't been sacked. She's been suspended - on FULL PAY.

So she'll get a nice paid holiday courtesy of the taxpayer, Haringey will wait till all the outrage blows over, and she'll quietly resume her post with (perhaps) a slap on the wrist.

This is justice for outrageous failure - resulting in the torture and death of a CHILD - in modern Britain.

It makes you want to weep.

Balls - I complimented you yesterday. I said you'd grown a pair. Clearly I was mistaken, and you're still the neutered, gutless, cowardly invertebrate I have always taken you for. No doubt your response to this will be "So What". But I hope the face of Baby P haunts you every time you look in a mirror after your craven actions.


Brennig said...

Balls' problem is that he has no basis in law to sack an employee of a local authority. I'm not defending him, just stating the legal position.

Ear, my word verification is 'python', how excellent is that?

Dungeekin said...

Good point. However, to rebut. .

The Government found it was in the 'national interest' to chuck competition law out of the window and force through the Lloyds/HBOS merger.

But they can't in this case?


Thanks for reading.


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally comment but I think the way you've written this does provoke me a little into doing so.

I'm guessing, perhaps wrongly, that you don't work in the public sector and you're not actually qualified to work for public social services or child protection. I'm also assuming that you don't actually personally know Sharon and, furthermore, the only information you have regarding the circumstances of her suspension, the terms of her employement and her involvement in the case are via the press which, as you point out, were incorrectly reporting her as having been summarily dismissed as the result of Ed Ball's direct intervention.

That's SUMMARY dismissal, without a disciplinary hearing or representation. Summary dismissal because Ed Balls says she has to go?

That poor child was beaten to death by one or more people. The same child also appears to have been scrutinised "up to 60 times" and "examined by a doctor who dismissed the examination because the baby was making too much fuss".

A *report* has been made - not a disciplinary hearing.

Are you really suggesting that Sharon should be 'sacked' without the right to fair hearing with the chance to put her case, if any?

Luckily we no longer allow lynch mobs or we'd strung up those convicted of the killing along with half of Harringey's social services department. Hung in the streets from lamp-posts - yes, that would stop that happening elsewhere. NO IT WILL NOT. If we find out later that Sharon was lynched due to her **line-management role** in all of this, well, someone has to carry the can for the people that actually SAW the child. That's right, isn't it?

Trial by press. Don't fall into the trap or we've all had it.

Dungeekin said...

Thanks for reading, and for the comment.

Just for the record - I worked for Hackney Social Services for 18 months, and was specifically involved in Child Protection.

I'm fully aware of the horrors people will inflict on children, and of the difficulties that social workers can suffer when trying to do the right thing by the child (while always living in fear of breaching the Childrens Act, much less their own safety!).

however, in this instance I absolutely DO think that her comments subsequent to the case were uncaring to the point of gross misconduct. . .and if she had had a single shred of integrity she would have resigned on the spot.

She didn't - and also, given that the actual incident occured over a year ago, one can assume that she wasn't prepared to 'fall on her sword' and take ownership. Therefore yes, I think she should have been pushed.

The doctor concerned was not suspended on full pay - she had her contract terminated by the NHS Trust, and even after that sanction is now suspended from practising. Which I believe was a better way of handling things than Haringey's.



Brennig said...

Hmm... but wasn't the doctor a mere locum and therefore in a position for immediate contract termination.

Employment Law is such a bugger, ain't it?