The social services chief sacked over the Baby P scandal has spoken of how her life has been unable to 'move on' since she lost her job four years ago.She has, it seems, given an interview to - what else? - Public Servant magazine in which she seeks to portray herself as hard done by.
Isn't there a clinical term for such detachment from reality?
People used to know ask me what I'm doing now, and they're shocked when I say "nothing",' she says in the January edition of the magazine. 'They can't quite grasp that my life hasn't moved on at all in the last four years; that I can't find any work and I'm living on benefits.
'I used to have a £130,000-a-year job running my own department and was a national reference point for Ofsted for special educational needs, but no organisation will take the risk of employing me because of who I am.'Well, actually, it's probably because you didn't run your department, you were exposed as less a 'national reference point' than an example of how not to do things, and you've become a liability and they don't want to have to spend time fighting lengthy court cases which you are still somehow fighting despite 'being on benefits'...
Shoesmith is battling for £1 million compensation after the Supreme Court refused in August 2011 to allow an appeal against a ruling that the former Haringey children’s services chief was unfairly dismissed by the then Children’s Secretary, Labour’s Ed Balls.Who's financing this? Is it legal aid? It better damned well not be!
In the interview, Shoesmith says children are now more at risk than before the Baby P case because of the damage done to the social work profession and how social workers are now people to hide from rather than work with.Hang on...didn't the Baby Peter murder happen because the injuries (and the men Connolly was shacked up with) were hidden from incompetent social workers under your command? Weren't they just pretending to 'work with your social workers'? Who couldn't tell the difference?
So nothing's really changed at all, has it?