The woman whose social workers failed to save Baby P was hailed as a heroine by her council bosses, she said yesterday. Sharon Shoesmith was treated to a celebration meal within hours of a press conference at which she insisted Haringey Council was not to blame. Council chief executive Dr Ita O'Donovan said the gesture was 'to thank her for all that she had done'. At work the next day she dubbed Mrs Shoesmith 'our heroine'. Despite mounting public fury, the chief executive of the National Children's Bureau, Sir Paul Enells, sent Mrs Shoesmith an email saying: 'Well done, Sharon. You have been getting the tone just right.'If Ed Balls was aware of this, then perhaps for once, a Labour politician acted with fully justifiable anger. Or, maybe he judged which way the wind would soon blow and did the right thing. Either way, if this woman is allowed to win her case, there really will be no justice. And if she loses, Balls could win a few votes by going after Sir Paul Enells and Dr Ita O'Donovan...
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Hardened Attitudes...
Unlike The Salted Slug and David Duff, I'm beginning to have a tiny bit more respect for Ed Balls with regard to his handling of the Sharon Shoesmith affair:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Meh.
A pox on everyone involved in this.
Maybe he did do the right thing for the wrong reason, but in going about it like he did - i.e. by sacking her by diktat - he has set her up for a big win.
So has he done any good at all?
What nonsense! The trial should be about system failure not the cynical scapegoating of an individual. Shoesmith, like so many other "leaders" in CSF, merely got the boxes ticked which allow Balls and company to crow about results. All very similar to the "successes" he crows about in our schools.
OT http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8295949.stm
If the system is failing and you are managing that system, then you should complain. She didn't, she was happy to box-tick, and when the inevitable happens she pays the price.
Totally agree with you. If she had any honour she would have resigned before he sacked her.
"Maybe he did do the right thing for the wrong reason, but in going about it like he did - i.e. by sacking her by diktat - he has set her up for a big win."
I really hope not. Surely the government's lawyers wouldn't have let him do anyth...
Oh.
"What nonsense! The trial should be about system failure not the cynical scapegoating of an individual. "
As AC1 says, she's an integral part of that system. And that's why 'leaders' are paid the huge salaries, isn't it? To lead?
"OT http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8295949.stm"
Good lord! All because the victim 'didn't want to press charges'. I thought they were ignoring that now and pressing on regardless?
"If she had any honour she would have resigned before he sacked her."
If she had any honour, would she be a part of that system in the first place?
What nonsense! Perhaps I need to clarify the comment. I have no sympathy with Shoesmith, who is fairly typical of those that inhabit the upper reaches of the CSF, the NHS etc. Most got to the top by ticking the right boxes - regardless of outcome. The Inspection regimes are weak and it seems the realities regarding the state of the systems only come out with tragedies such as Baby Peter or the deaths in North Staffordshire. But to praise Balls and his cynical reaction is plain silly. Has he made any efforts to reform the system?
"I thought they were ignoring that now and pressing on regardless?"
IPCC Report
Overview of the incident
8. On 1st February 2005 Colette Lynch was subjected to a frightening incident of domestic violence involving criminal damage to her home by her estranged partner, Percy Wright. Whilst they attended the scene the police did not investigate the incident, or record or otherwise treat it as a crime or follow any of the requirements in the force’s domestic violence policy and other applicable policies. Percy Wright was not arrested then or on a subsequent opportunity the following day when police visited him with mental health and child protection officials despite repeated reports that he carried knives and more than one report from the domestic violence incident that he had threatened to cut Colette’s throat. Colette’s decision to lodge a complaint (crime) regarding the incident at her home was also not actioned. On 3rd February 2005 Colette was killed by Wright, who also injured her mother.
Glancing through the report, I have one practical suggestion for all officers and medics: do not use lingo. It may sound as cool as being on a bad episode of Holby City, but it my inadvertently lead the listener to down-grade what you are saying.
After Percy Wright killed Colette Lynch, he was convicted on manslaugher on grounds of diminished responsibility (copped a plea) and was sentenced to be detained until he was no further threat to the public.
Within four years an MH tribunal decide he was no further threat, and so they released him.
Colette’s mum, Helen Lynch, of Dunchurch Road, Rugby, who was also knifed by Wright, led a campaign to block his release, insisting that he remained a danger to the public. More than 1,000 also signed a petition urging he be kept under lock and key. Speaking after yesterday’s decision, Mrs Lynch said: “The tribunal has been heard and Percy Wright has been given a conditional discharge. “How about that for betrayal?"
Sorry for tripeing errors - had to dash out. Should have been:
"convicted after admitting manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility" (plea bargain).
There are other typos in there too, but life's too short.
The police held an investigation and announced that disciplinary measures would be a fine of five days' pay for each of the officers.
The family is reported to be looking in to the possibility of suing Warwichshire's Chief Police Officer.
The interesting thing is, if you read the BBC coverage you would think that the two officers had attended a broken window and had little evidence to go on, particularly as they are suggesting that Colette Lynch refused to file a complaint.
Reading the report and other coverage from the court, it is apparent that they ignored considerable evidence that Percy Wright was unstable and violent, including being told so by a nurse. Indeed, he was so unpredictable that the nurse wanted him detained at a police station for assessment as he was a potential danger in A&E.
"The Inspection regimes are weak and it seems the realities regarding the state of the systems only come out with tragedies such as Baby Peter or the deaths in North Staffordshire. But to praise Balls and his cynical reaction is plain silly."
It is pretty weak praise, to be sure. And I'm certain he'll do something stupid soon to earn my undying enmity again.
But if the stopped clock is right for once (or twice) we should acknowledge it.
"After Percy Wright killed Colette Lynch, he was convicted on manslaugher on grounds of diminished responsibility (copped a plea) and was sentenced to be detained until he was no further threat to the public."
Ah. I had a feeling for what your next sentence would be. I wasn't wrong...
"The interesting thing is, if you read the BBC coverage you would think that the two officers had attended a broken window and had little evidence to go on, particularly as they are suggesting that Colette Lynch refused to file a complaint."
That's certainly the impression you get, isn't it? Or rather, the one they want to give...
Post a Comment