Travel2 mins ago
Sharon Shoesmith,
Do abers think that shoesmith should get this huge payout in the case of baby p. for her neglect in not spotting what was happening in this very, very sad case?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hawksley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Even the govt has to obey the law
She learnt of her dismissal from the teevee whereas there should have been an inquiry and then a hearing ( which every fule kno)
and so she has a case for unlawful dissmissal
it was also unfair - and I think the amount was that high on the grounds that she wouldnt be able to work again
The gove has to obey the law as we all do
She learnt of her dismissal from the teevee whereas there should have been an inquiry and then a hearing ( which every fule kno)
and so she has a case for unlawful dissmissal
it was also unfair - and I think the amount was that high on the grounds that she wouldnt be able to work again
The gove has to obey the law as we all do
Already extensively discussed the other day.
She is not getting a payout for her poor performance, she is getting it because the Government broke the law. Even bad employees have rights and there is a proper way to dismiss under achieving staff. Her removal was politically motivated by Balls, and the law was broken.
She is not getting a payout for her poor performance, she is getting it because the Government broke the law. Even bad employees have rights and there is a proper way to dismiss under achieving staff. Her removal was politically motivated by Balls, and the law was broken.
Labour's Ed Balls has something to answer for.
/// The reason for that was that Ed Balls, who was Children’s Secretary at the time of the Baby P scandal, fired Shoesmith from her £130,000-a-year post without giving her the right of reply . She learned of her sacking – and the name of he successor – while watching the TV news. ///
/// The reason for that was that Ed Balls, who was Children’s Secretary at the time of the Baby P scandal, fired Shoesmith from her £130,000-a-year post without giving her the right of reply . She learned of her sacking – and the name of he successor – while watching the TV news. ///
To this day though, Balls maintains that he acted under advisement after speaking to Government lawyers so something went badly awry somewhere.
Mind you, given some of the vagaries and anomilies that our legal and appeals system throws up from time to time, it's not really a surprise that this woman got the payout she did.
It's still blood money earned off the death of a little boy though, whichever way she spins it.
Mind you, given some of the vagaries and anomilies that our legal and appeals system throws up from time to time, it's not really a surprise that this woman got the payout she did.
It's still blood money earned off the death of a little boy though, whichever way she spins it.
> To this day though, Balls maintains that he acted under advisement after speaking to Government lawyers
No doubt he would have spoken to Gov lawyers, but "acted under advisement" - I wonder what he means by that?
Most scenarios are not black and white and the lawyers would have laid out the situation for him to assess and make a decision on. It was his decision, not theirs, so "acted under advisement" is a bit misleading. It would be unthinkable that the lawyers wouldn't know this piece of employment law - it's pretty basic stuff. Even without lawyers Balls himself should have a reasonable understanding of it, as most intelligent people in normal working life would have. He simply made a poor decision based not on this piece of employment law, but on everything else that was going on at the time ...
No doubt he would have spoken to Gov lawyers, but "acted under advisement" - I wonder what he means by that?
Most scenarios are not black and white and the lawyers would have laid out the situation for him to assess and make a decision on. It was his decision, not theirs, so "acted under advisement" is a bit misleading. It would be unthinkable that the lawyers wouldn't know this piece of employment law - it's pretty basic stuff. Even without lawyers Balls himself should have a reasonable understanding of it, as most intelligent people in normal working life would have. He simply made a poor decision based not on this piece of employment law, but on everything else that was going on at the time ...
Correct. And what's really bad about her award is that it is based on her outrageously high salary, which was clearly far too much given the poor performance she was achieving.
Fair enough that she should be compensated for wrongful dismissal, but she should have been compensated according to her value ...
Fair enough that she should be compensated for wrongful dismissal, but she should have been compensated according to her value ...
What 'compo' could the mother get? As far as I know, unlike in Sharon Shoosmith's case, the proper processes were followed - the mum was charged and sentenced.
The state may or may not have to support her now, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. She has served her sentence and is entitled to claim benefits if necessary. I'd be interested to know what you think should be done in this respect.
The state may or may not have to support her now, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. She has served her sentence and is entitled to claim benefits if necessary. I'd be interested to know what you think should be done in this respect.
I think there are other people in this situation who should have been disciplined. What about the doctor who didn't examine Baby Peter because he was "a bit cranky", and so didn't discover his broken back and possibly save his life?
In the Daniel Pelka case, what about the GP who struck him off her list because he wasn't brought to appointments? She should be struck off, IMO.
Shoesmith did a bad job, but has been unfairly vilified and sacked.
In the Daniel Pelka case, what about the GP who struck him off her list because he wasn't brought to appointments? She should be struck off, IMO.
Shoesmith did a bad job, but has been unfairly vilified and sacked.
In reply to factor fiction.you ask what my thoughts are. Baby ps mother should have been locked up for life,and die in prison, for all the suffering of that little toddler,its people like the parole board ,etc that make the UK,a soft touch. YOU SAY, She has served her sentence and is entitled to claim benefits. Baby p was also entitled to a life, are you another soft touch UK supporter.???
