Morning:
8°c
Baby P chief: Ministers treated me like Jamie Bulger's killers
Terry Kirby1 Sep 2009
Sharon Shoesmith, the Haringey official sacked in the wake of the Baby P scandal is claiming she has been treated as badly by Ministers as the killers of James Bulger.
Lawyers for Mrs Shoesmith say her treatment by Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary was driven by a public outcry, similar to the way the Bulger killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were given 15-year prison sentences on the orders of then Home Secretary Michael Howard.
He was later overruled by the House of Lords.
Mrs Shoesmith, 56, was the £133,000-a-year head of Haringey children's services department before being sacked by Mr Balls in December last year after a report found evidence of devastating failures by the authority in the Baby P case.
Mrs Shoesmith is bringing three separate legal actions over her dismissal.
Baby P, now known by his real name as Peter Connelly, was tortured and beaten at the Tottenham home occupied by his mother, Tracey Connelly, 28, her boyfriend Steven Barker, 33, and his brother, Jason Owen, eventually being found dead from numerous injuries in August 2007.
All three are now in prison for allowing the abuse to occur.
Social workers from Mrs Shoesmith's department, as well as police, doctors and health visitors saw Peter many times during the abuse, but missed vital evidence and took no action to protect him.
The similarities to the Bulger case are outlined in the summary of the action for judicial review Mrs Shoesmith is bringing over the decision to sack her.
According to reports today, Tony Child, her lawyer, argues that the case has strong parallels' with the Bulger case and that the Secretary of State has fallen into the same error.'
Mr Balls acted wrongly, he claims, because of the intense media pressure being applied,' adding: "The Secretary of State in acting as he did acted unlawfully in what seems to have been a knee-jerk reaction to press coverage."
According to the lawyer's submission, Mrs Shoesmith was at the centre of a media storm' being harrased on a daily basis by journalists and also received death threats.
The sacking should be quashed, he maintains, because Mr Balls acted having regard to irrelevant matters, for an improper purpose and irrationally.'
The Children's Secretary, he said, acted without any regard for natural justice.'
In the Bulger case, in 1993, Mr Howard controversially used his powers as Home Secretary to order that Venables and Thompson, then both 11, should serve at least 15 years in prison.
Cancelling his order, the House of Lords decreed that Mr Howard had given too much weight to public opinion; they were released after eight years.
The judicial review, which is also being brought against Ofsted and Haringey Council, is due to be heard in the High Court next month.
Mrs Shoesmith is also bringing an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination and a separate action for breach of contract.
Reader views (25)
Shoesmith's arrogance is staggering and her lack of remorse contemptible. The fact she considers the murderers of James Bulger were "unfairly treated" indicates a serious pathological flaw in her character and she should never again be employed by any agency which has dealings with or responsibility for children.
- R.F., Yorks, UK, 02/09/2009 09:17
Report abuse
A thoroughly nasty piece of work,to show some remorse would have been the very least that Shoesmith could have done for the dreadful horror caused by her departments failings,she should be in prison.
- Aufdeutsch, Canterbury OUTOFWORKKENT., 01/09/2009 15:28
Report abuse
Liberal & Proud, I can't perform open heart surgery - does that mean I can't criticise a surgeon, half of whose patients have died? People who can't make those decisions with some accuracy should not be in social work. You imply it's very difficult but the facts the social workers had in the Baby P case would make it blindingly obvious to anyone that the child was being abused. In the Satanic abuse cases, social workers were going around inspecting childrens' anuses to see if they "dilated", which somehow proved to them they were being abused. The problem is not that it's a difficult job but there are too many stupid and mentally ill people doing it. And there is far too much secrecy surrounding them, allowing them to get away with their incompetence.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 01/09/2009 14:41
Report abuse
Just because the Minister agreed with or responded to public opinion does not per se mean that his decision was unsound.
- Bloke, London, 01/09/2009 14:25
Report abuse
I believe it was her initial arrogance and this selfish act of "am above the law attitude" that got her into the mess.
I still feel she deserve to be sacked anyway, it the whole episode claearly demonstates her "Boss-like-Above -reproach-attitude";perhaps these incidence taech her about HUMILITY.
- Daniel, Rochester, 01/09/2009 14:03
Report abuse
I have little sympathy with Ms Shoesmith as she was paid over the going rate to head a damaged department. She appears to have failed to follow the recommendations of the Climbie report - it was her job to implement it!! If she was not able to implement it she should have reported the problems upwards - it is too late to start getting upset now. She appears to have failed to fulfill her job description - failed to appoint an independent head to chair the investigation into the death of Baby P or take any steps to prevent this happening again.
I do however have a lot of sympathy for social workers in general - it is a heavily underfunded department with an ever increasing remit and a reduced number of people willing to enter the profession (probably as a result of the hugely negative publicity and finger pointing that goes on whenever something goes wrong). I know that some departments are having to advertise jobs that were previously done by social workers as 'administrative' posts and then recruit unqualified staff to effectively do the job a social worker should be doing because of cost cutting and the reduced number of social workers available. Until the departments are properly funded and staffed (not going to happen any time soon under either Tories or Labour) dreadful errors are going to happen.
- Andy, london, 01/09/2009 14:00
Report abuse
Ms Shoesmith should be grateful that she never worked in the real world , in industry or transport, because she, and her underlings, would be facing a charge of Corporate Manslaughter.
As to the defence of social workers and their difficult job. What is it exactly? Every social worker I met was a 3rd class degree educated, pseudo marxist theorist without any knowledge or love of people. Bags of meetings, tons of files and not one scrap of humanity or sense of right or wrong about them. We need to bring back Welfare Workers drawn from men and women with an experience of family life and with grounded common sense- the middle aged, mothers and neighbours.
- Richard Meredith, huntingdon, 01/09/2009 13:07
Report abuse
The difference is that Bulger's killers were children.
- Andy Davids, London, 01/09/2009 13:06
Report abuse
Keith (Lonsdale) and Natty (London): my point is not that she should be above critcism: but rather the nature of it. For example, the description of her below as an "odious creature" and "evil" is completely over the top and bordering on the hyterical: so that we are left wondering what words to use to describe the actual killers of Baby P.
- Alan, London, 01/09/2009 12:54
Report abuse
In defence of Social Workers (not necessarily Sharon Shoesmith), it is a bloody hard job - you cannot make a right decision in social work.
You either risk harm or death by leaving the child with the parent or risk breaking up a family and causing irreperable damage to the child by removing them from their family.
Until you've had to make those decisions, don't criticise. Maybe we should be spending a bit more time trying to educate people, running compulsory parenting classes and looking at why 1 child a week is killed by abuse in this country?
Social workers aren't killing people - parents are.
- Liberal And Proud, London, UK, 01/09/2009 12:39
Report abuse
Not enough is done to protect all children, whatever age. The social workers should report any abuse they suspect, whether mental or physical.
It appears Ms Shoesmith was grossly overpaid and, when this case was brought to light, should have been dismissed immediately.
It seems she was quite prepared to keep her head in the sand and collect her monthly pay cheque but was completely oblivious of what was going on around her.
She would be the first to shout from the roof tops if the same thing happened to any of her family.
- Steve, Bexhill, 01/09/2009 12:39
Report abuse
She does deserve some of the blame, probably a large share. But others are also culpable, including the responsible Minister, Ed Balls. While its hard to feel much sympathy for Mrs Shoesmith she's the sacrificial lamb in this. Why hasn't Ed Balls resigned or been fired for the failure of his department too?
- Tony, Nottingham, 01/09/2009 12:20
Report abuse
The comparison with Thompson and Venables is appropriate. Their punishment and hers has been pathetically inadequate.
- Rob, Rochester, 01/09/2009 11:55
Report abuse
I'm surprised social workers aren't vilified more. The record of our social services is appalling and shameful, from the "satanic abuse" witch hunts to the deaths of Baby P and Victoria Climbie. They're the last people I would trust with a child in danger. I'm sure there are decent social workers but the failure is institutional. It's time for serious reform.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 01/09/2009 11:48
Report abuse
The main problem with Ms Shoesmith is the as the chair of Haringey's Safeguarding Children Board she also carried out an internal review of Baby P's death that, as expected, exonerated both herself and her department. The Commission of Social Care Inspection also gave the council the all clear after accepting 'evidence' gathered by Ms Shoesmith and her department. She then consistently failed to apologise on behalf of herself or her department for the very obvious failings that led to the death of Baby P. The fact that it 'appears' she tried to cover up the failings of her department alone is justification for her dismissal without compensation!!.
- Pat, Croydon Uk, 01/09/2009 11:42
Report abuse
Alan, London - I think the reason why the social workers are attracting such negative and venomous comments are quite simply because they did not do the job they were paid to do! In any other line of work it is the same, you do your job properly - you wont get thanks or praise for it but if you dont do it properly, you should expect to lose your job. Peter could of still been living now if the agencies had actually done there jobs properly.
- Natty, London, 01/09/2009 11:22
Report abuse
Alan, London, this article is about Shoesmith and her unjustified whimpering, not about the killers of Baby P, about whom all commentators on these pages rightly expressed overwhelming outrage and disgust.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 01/09/2009 11:15
Report abuse
It is sad that so many commentators appear to direct more hatred towards social workers and others (no matter what their failings) than those who actaully carried out the crimes: makes you wonder why anyone would want to go into social work: you get no real thanks when things go right, and you might as well be the devil in carnate if they go wrong.
- Alan, London, 01/09/2009 10:51
Report abuse
A product of Gordon Brown's watch.
- Tonyjohnson, Hythe Kent, 01/09/2009 10:48
Report abuse
People should realise that Baby P happens every day. It's just that this case got all the publicity. This woman should be locked up for incompetence. But, will we ever change society in our namby pamby state. Has anyone heard of any MPs being jailed?
- Never Eat Tuna Again, London, 01/09/2009 10:42
Report abuse
Shoesmith's abject failure to properly supervise her staff contributed directly to the death of Baby P. However, it is unfair to compare her to the Bulger killers; they were below the age of criminal responsibility, Shoesmith is not.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 01/09/2009 10:39
Report abuse
I think it was her refusal to apologise or been seen to take responsibility that prompted Ed Balls. And how, now, could she possibly want her old job back. Surely, whether she is right or wrong, she can see what that would do for moral.
- Ben Farrell, London, 01/09/2009 10:31
Report abuse
This woman's arrogance is staggering. She got the big bucks so rightly should take the responsibility. Her actions since the tragedy show how totally unsuited she was to that role.
- Philip, London, England, 01/09/2009 10:10
Report abuse
Does she receive Legal Aid I wonder?
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 01/09/2009 09:10
Report abuse
Odious creature.... she obviously has no conscience..... evil
- David, soton, 01/09/2009 08:40
Report abuse
