Has anyone else been following with interest the revelations emerging in the Sharon Shoesmith case? It seems that following the initial Baby P press conference she initially received a number of supportive emails from senior figures in the sector including a senior civil servant about how well the situation had been handled.
There's also a good piece in the Guardian examining the way the government reacted to the media coverage - The Sun's coverage prompting "crisis mode".
What do you think about the way Shoesmith was treated?
CareSpace support
Whatever we may think about Haringey's failings, Shoesmith was entitled to "due process" in terms of her employment. Presumably the High Court will establish whether such was followed, or whether political headline-grabbing ruled the day.
In the civil service there is an expression about an "Umbrella Job" which means telling a story to protect the organisation or unit from criticism. (Think "Yes, Minister" )
I think they were congratulating her on the quality of her "smokescreen"
Perhaps she maximised the positive points, but ignored the negative points?
surfer: Whatever we may think about Haringey's failings, Shoesmith was entitled to "due process" in terms of her employment. Presumably the High Court will establish whether such was followed, or whether political headline-grabbing ruled the day.
Absolutely surfer. It's as sad as it is familiar that we allow the media to hijack process for commercial aims.
Cheers,
Stuart
Visit my blog at http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/
simeon2: Has anyone else been following with interest the revelations emerging in the Sharon Shoesmith case? It seems that following the initial Baby P press conference she initially received a number of supportive emails from senior figures in the sector including a senior civil servant about how well the situation had been handled. There's also a good piece in the Guardian examining the way the government reacted to the media coverage - The Sun's coverage prompting "crisis mode". What do you think about the way Shoesmith was treated?
it was right she was fired/dismissed but she seems to have a case on how they went about firing her.
have been sitting in on the court case and still can't make up my mind if she's villain or victim
on the one hand it's pretty clear Ed Balls wanted a head quickly and basically promised The Sun that it should be hers...and it does seem odd that she wasn't allowed any feedback on the Ofsted report... but on the other hand its clear things were a complete mess at Haringey and something like Baby P was bound to happen so surely she needs to take full responsibility for it?
I hope that she gets a fair hearing. I hope that Ed Balls goes sooner rather than later.
Perhaps Sharon Shoesmith would have been better advised to follow in her predecessor's footsteps and simply hand the 'blame' onto the case holding social worker?
Whether Shoesmith is a 'hero or villain' she stood by her staff and I think for those of us working in the difficult field of child protection that's what we would hope for.
judy: have been sitting in on the court case and still can't make up my mind if she's villain or victim on the one hand it's pretty clear Ed Balls wanted a head quickly and basically promised The Sun that it should be hers...and it does seem odd that she wasn't allowed any feedback on the Ofsted report... but on the other hand its clear things were a complete mess at Haringey and something like Baby P was bound to happen so surely she needs to take full responsibility for it?
Taking responsibility for deficiencies is one thing, being responsible for a whole departments failings, as one person, is an absurdity. With the advent of new labour we drifted into a socio political arena whereby any mistake results in demands for sackings. It is a pity that the politicians didn't adopt the same blame culture principles to themselves within the context of recent events (financial crisis, Bankers bonuses, MP's expenses, illegal wars etc.) and communally, either fell on their swords or stood up and made themselves accountable and then let the Sun start a smear campaign to get them sacked.
Don't we teach our children that we learn from our mistakes, Sharon Shoesmith can't be held responsible for what happened to Baby P, she wasn't kept in touch with day to day practice and wasn't supervising the relevant professionals.
She has my full support and I she hopes that gets a fortune for unfair dismissal as it will give the populace to get Ed Balls' proverbials in a vice.
I agree with Voltaire and Surfer. The people who killed Baby Peter are now in prison.
As a matter of interest I previously worked for a healthcare regulator as a "senior inspector of serious incidents" . After preparing a report of an investigation I had performed into a very serious adverse event I submitted it to the Dept. of Health. Telephone calls and pressure was then repeatedly put on me to change the report as basically they wanted someone's head to roll. I refused to change my report because I felt everything possible had been done to correct the problems with the systems and processes that led to the SUI. Sloppy procedures and systems led to the incident however those procedures were ones that came from a DH expert and the "holes" in it had not been picked up by the regulator during several inspections over a number of years. Basically the incident could have happened several times more. The patients involved (did not die on this occasion but the consequence would not have made any difference to my actions) were happy with the way the incident had been investigated and the openness, transparency and truthfulness that had been shown to them by the clinical professionals directly involved. They asked to continue their treatment with the same team. Interestingly the SMT of the hospital trust also wanted someone to at least be suspended if not sacked. Basically I ended up resigning as I felt extremely pressured to change my report to give the politicians what they wanted. I can believe totally that Ofsted changed their report. In my case change the Minister of Education for the Minister of Health. An inspector is a releatively junior position and when politicians and senior management team get involved its very difficult to stand up to them - I could only do so by resigning and losing my pension. Ethically I still hink I was right. Policitians, whether in education, child protection or healthcare need to learn to walk the walk not just talk the talk. The press too need to be aware of how difficult some of the decisions are, at the sharp end, when basically you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
I do think that her sacking was unfair as it did not seem to follow any local or legal procedures but Voltaire,fr you to say that “Taking responsibility for deficiencies is one thing, being responsible for a whole departments failings, as one person, is an absurdity”, is a bit strange. I thought the jsutification for £100,000, plus salaries were that these people did take the rsponsibility and needeed to be rewarded accordingly.
Nihat Erol: I do think that her sacking was unfair as it did not seem to follow any local or legal procedures but Voltaire,fr you to say that “Taking responsibility for deficiencies is one thing, being responsible for a whole departments failings, as one person, is an absurdity”, is a bit strange. I thought the jsutification for £100,000, plus salaries were that these people did take the rsponsibility and needeed to be rewarded accordingly.
Nihat, I still assert that what happened to Ms. Shoesmith is an absurdity, why are you trying to heap more misery on our benighted and disempowered profession? The salary given to a DSS is commensurate with the responsibility for making strategic plans and decisions and liaising with local and national government. If we ran with your theory we would be demanding the heads of medical and surgical departments of hospitals when one of their junior counterparts cocks up and kills someone through poor practice. Sharon Shoesmith wouldn't have known anything at all about what was going on at ground level. There is a management strata that has oversight of day to day practice.
Basically Ed Balls messed up big time, he hasn't accepted his responsibilities in this affair in that he pandered to public opinion; I don't see you saying he should be sacked. Tragically and importantly It is not of any import that a child died in this affair; what matters more is the principle of justice, if Mr Balls and his cohort get away with such a blatant abuse of power then we are all wasting our time in contributing to these forums as we are going to take everything lying down that this sordid government want to do to us
Voltaire, if I understand you right, any DSS is only responsible for strategic decisions and if the consequence of those strategic decisions results in poor practice or a fatality, then they are not to be held responsible. I fail to see the logic in this defence. Ministers of State owe their jobs as much to political competence as to public opinion so I am not sure where you go with that too. I am not heaping “more misery on our benighted and disempowered profession” All I am saying is that unfair though her treatment is likely to have been, having heard public sector Directors and Chief Executives justify their salaries on the basis of their expert micro and macro management, I find it odd that you now support them in saying “It wasn’t me gov”. Who is taking responsibility here?
ed balls was not running the team involved in the death of baby p. sharon shoesmith was. she had overall responsability and was rightly fired. just because public opinion wanted her fired does not make her sacking wrong. if anything if the public wanted her fired that strenghtens the case for doing so.
Nihat you are failing to make your argument global, you are failing to respond to the idea that other public bodies wouldn't have allowed, let alone sanctioned the instant dismissal, without severance pay of a senior executive. And your'e right, it "wasn't her" that was responsible for the death of the child. Are you aware of the principle of delegation? the professionals involved in the case would have been supervised by someone much further down the pyramid, practice concerns would have been managed at that level. Haringey was in a parlous state as far as social conditions and numbers of social workers. If you beleive that a DSS should be responsible for the social construct of the borough, with all of it's negative history you are simplyfying the problem.
If I recall correctly Sharon Shoesmith took responsibility for her poor PR and in some measure what happened; that should have been enough for public consumption, including, as someone in the profession, your good self.
Furthermore Ministers of State are appointments, Ed Balls was formerly Gordon Brown's advisor, his academic background is all in economics, didn't make him qualified to take over the DSCF; no public opinion was asked for in his appointment. To reinforce his total incompetency in all matters look at the mess the country is in, he was Browns advisor with a very highly respected and very strong academic background in economics I needn't say anymore need I.
I feel that your rhetoric identifies you as a supporter of Balls, not of the profession; this profession is built on foundations of individuals ability to listen and capacity to change. Ergo, I restate; "you are heaping more misery on our benighted and disempowered profession". On the other hand you may be playing devils advocate to stimulate discussion and argument; either way please start to test your own argument to self destruction, you are leaving too many gaps.
keeping shoesmith in her job could not be seen as defending the proffesion, firing her was a defence of the profession. not only in the publics eye but also s/w's.
The way she was dismissed should be the norm for Chief Executives and Chief Officers in local government and the Public Sector.(When they have performed dangerously badly) It can be wrong and against the Public Interest for these "confidentiality" clauses to be agreed when CEOs and Directors are chucked out.
titchmagoo: ed balls was not running the team involved in the death of baby p. sharon shoesmith was. she had overall responsability and was rightly fired. just because public opinion wanted her fired does not make her sacking wrong. if anything if the public wanted her fired that strenghtens the case for doing so.
Neither was Sharon Shoesmith in charge of the team involved in the childs death, It was the team manager!!!
If you follow the chain of command Ed Balls had some sort of line responsibility for Sharon Shoesmith as he would be at the same managerial level as Shoesmith was in relation to the Social worker involved in the case. The public wanted most of the government sacking after the expenses scandal and financial management that almost brought us to our knees. Did the public get it??? I certainly hope you are not in a post in which public opinion has any influence; from following your posts I guess that you are involvrd in adult services and work with difficult to engage service users (Substance misusers, offenders etc?) We all know what the public think about them don't we?
titchmagoo: keeping shoesmith in her job could not be seen as defending the proffesion, firing her was a defence of the profession. not only in the publics eye but also s/w's.
Is that why social workers are coming out in her defence?
But, did Sharon Shoesmith reassure Councillors and her CEO that there were no problems in children and family services and especially no problems in any of the Child Protection teams. I suspect that she may have minimised any problems. Did her managers tell her were things were going wrong?
Smokey: The way she was dismissed should be the norm for Chief Executives and Chief Officers in local government and the Public Sector.(When they have performed dangerously badly) It can be wrong and against the Public Interest for these "confidentiality" clauses to be agreed when CEOs and Directors are chucked out.
Again I ask you; what do you propose we do with directors of medicine when patients die at the hands of junior medical staff; if we did we wouldn't have a NHS. If we followed the same principle with the government, following on the heels of their catastrophic mismanagement of the nations finances, which will ultimately result in even greater issues of poverty and social deprivation WE should have sacked them shouldn't we???
voltaire: titchmagoo: keeping shoesmith in her job could not be seen as defending the proffesion, firing her was a defence of the profession. not only in the publics eye but also s/w's. Is that why social workers are coming out in her defence?
a few are the words missing here.
Smokey: But, did Sharon Shoesmith reassure Councillors and her CEO that there were no problems in children and family services and especially no problems in any of the Child Protection teams. I suspect that she may have minimised any problems. Did her managers tell her were things were going wrong?
When OFSTED did a procedural examination of Haringey following the tragedy they found an audit trail, of all ICS ducumentation, showing that all proccesses had been carried out to the letter. Unfortunately it led straight to the childs tragic end. That system was put in place by the government!!
I think we need to be very open minded when looking at who was at fault here, don't we?
I have mixed feeling about Mrs Shoesmith treatment however, I do hope she cleared her name. In my opinion I believe that the local authority play up to the media. On one hand the government is telling social worker that children needs their family and workers to do their best to keep childre in the family but some manager are not supportive towards their workers. I am speaking from experience as I use to start work at 7:00AM until 8:00PM just to safegaurds children. Another joke the managers and senior practitioners used to make, on your return don't ask for section 17 funds or brought back any children. We are working with the most disadvantage in society and behaviour like this is deem oppressive.
Voltaire, I am happy to have a philosophical discussion with you if that is what floats your boat. I have already said that it was likely that her dismissal breached to local and legal arrangements, let alone natural justice, so am a bit puzzled as to why you think I support a blanket “instant dismissal, without severance pay of a senior executive.”
All I am saying is that these are the people who made the arguments about why they should be paid big salaries given their responsibilities and their accountability. I am doing is reminding you that having got the rewards on that basis, it seems a bit strange to me that you are averse to the consequences being based on the same principles.
As for delegated responsibility, are you seriously arguing that because an organization has different layers of management, the Director or Chief Executive is not to be held responsible for what those managers/employees do? Surely delegation is also about ensuring information is fed upwards too?
I have worked in Haringey and am well aware of the indices of deprivation there. However and perhaps rather naively, I thought that our jobs as social workers were to tackle such inequalities and deprivation not be defeated by them. Isn’t it a bit lame to say that if we fail this simply reflects the poverty around us? Difficult though working in such boroughs is, I would be mortified if I allowed myself that cop-out. Isn’t that just making us passive victims of what is around us?
As for politician’s qualifications, you seem to think that Governments are like corporations and those ministrial responsibilities should be based on the “professional” qualifications of the minister. You seem to forget that this has never happened in our or any other country.
Given that most politicians are lawyers, there would be no education department, no health department and the rest. As for being a supporter of Ed Balls as opposed to a supporter “of the profession”, this is a bit presumptuous of you. You have no idea of my political persuasion so are making an uninformed presumption.
voltaire: Smokey: But, did Sharon Shoesmith reassure Councillors and her CEO that there were no problems in children and family services and especially no problems in any of the Child Protection teams. I suspect that she may have minimised any problems. Did her managers tell her were things were going wrong? When OFSTED did a procedural examination of Haringey following the tragedy they found an audit trail, of all ICS ducumentation, showing that all proccesses had been carried out to the letter. Unfortunately it led straight to the childs tragic end. That system was put in place by the government!! I think we need to be very open minded when looking at who was at fault here, don't we?
When you say the system was put in place by the Government, I think you are forgetting that Civil Servants in the DCSF had extensive consultation with those professions and agencies involved.
Smokey: voltaire: Smokey: But, did Sharon Shoesmith reassure Councillors and her CEO that there were no problems in children and family services and especially no problems in any of the Child Protection teams. I suspect that she may have minimised any problems. Did her managers tell her were things were going wrong? When OFSTED did a procedural examination of Haringey following the tragedy they found an audit trail, of all ICS ducumentation, showing that all proccesses had been carried out to the letter. Unfortunately it led straight to the childs tragic end. That system was put in place by the government!! I think we need to be very open minded when looking at who was at fault here, don't we? When you say the system was put in place by the Government, I think you are forgetting that Civil Servants in the DCSF had extensive consultation with those professions and agencies involved.
I think you are forgetting that the DCSF will have bent to the will of their political masters; ICS is primarily a data collecting tool, the new labour project relies very heavily on the collecting of statistical data to show parliament and the people that they have completed and recorded X amount of assessments to match them with their "Outcomes" etc. etc. As for your extensive consultation I feel you should consult with Prof. Sue White of the Social Work Task Force and you will be informed, on an evidenced basis just how little consultation has taken place. IE when the DCSF were consulted on where they got the idea that an initial assessment must be completed within 7 days they could not come up with an answer.
To expand on your suggestion that DCSF civil servants frame the policies to please their masters, Would you agree that Local Government Officers such as Sharon Shoesmith also attempt to put a positive "spin" on reports to the Borough Cabinet or to the Borough Scrutiny committees.
Do team managers accurately report on the effectiveness of their teams? When there are problems of, for example high number of referrals, staff vacancies, staff absences, G.P.s not attending case conferences, large number of open cases, and other constraints on effectiveness, Then do team managers admit they need more resources, or do they try to say that they are doing better than they actually are. Who are the biggest "spinners" Government Ministers, Civil Servants, Council Cabinet members, or Senior Local Government officers? Do they just hope there is never a serious case in their backyard?
Hi Nihat,
I didn't say that you support a blanket “instant dismissal, without severance pay of a senior executive.” I said that other professional bodies wouldn't. so why should we?
Surely being a senior exec. in a high risk occupation is so difficult that if you could be dismissed on the above basis, as you can be in the US, there would be no senior exec's.
We do have to take delegated responsibility seriously; you must agree that if there were concerns about the social workers practice it would have been dealt with by that workers supervisor, it seems too much to think that any DSS would be made aware of practice issues until it had got to the point whereby the worker was going to have to be dismissed?
Unfortunately the tragic information was fed upwards but only after the event, it is recorded that OFSTED found a perfect audit trail of assessment work and recordings leading straight to Baby Peter's death; we could surmise that only the outcomes of performance clinics were fed up to the top; after all sharon shoesmith would have been ultimately responsible for assessments and reports being carried out within timescales.
Regarding politicians qualification's would you agree, that if, as a minister, you had some in depth knowledge of your portfolio you would be better equipped to make critical decisions? I know that this doesn't always happen but if it did it would add to politicians credibility? Mibisterial positions change without apparent warning how can the post holder act with any authority?
Given his strong background as an economics scholar Ed Balls would probably have made a good chancellor.
I agree with your sentiments about working in area's of high deprivation, I am in the north and have worked extensively accross Rotherham and Doncaster during their recent times of strife and on a practitioner level enjoy tackling inequalities and discrimination. All I was pointing out was that heading up a borough like this adds to the burden and I don't think that a high level of pay is the issue; incidently the head of service that was parachuted in post Shoesmith had the salary for the post doubled to over £200K.
V.
Smokey: To expand on your suggestion that DCSF civil servants frame the policies to please their masters, Would you agree that Local Government Officers such as Sharon Shoesmith also attempt to put a positive "spin" on reports to the Borough Cabinet or to the Borough Scrutiny committees. Do team managers accurately report on the effectiveness of their teams? When there are problems of, for example high number of referrals, staff vacancies, staff absences, G.P.s not attending case conferences, large number of open cases, and other constraints on effectiveness, Then do team managers admit they need more resources, or do they try to say that they are doing better than they actually are. Who are the biggest "spinners" Government Ministers, Civil Servants, Council Cabinet members, or Senior Local Government officers? Do they just hope there is never a serious case in their backyard?
LGO's probably do put a positive spin on some aspects of their reports, however they are aslo responsible for all assessments and reports etc being completed within timescales, the data pertaining to this is usually fed up to LGO level and this data, unfortunately is all the New Labour project want.
Strangely enough I remember the Head of Service in Rotherham always putting a positive spin on her blog. I was not suprised to hear her on Radio Sheffield 2-3 weeks ago apologising for the authorities woeful OFSTED unnannounced inspection when the authority was slaughtered!!!
Having worked in boroughs in crisis I can only state, that in my experience, that team managers have always accurately reported on the effectiveness of their teams etc. They have always stated that there is a resource defecit and human resource issues let alone the problems with multi agency working.
If you are working where the sort of practice you suggest is happening then you need to move on.
Voltaire, I may have got it wrong but was she not from an education background? If you believe that ministers should only have portfolio’s for which they are qualified then patently she was not suitable for the post she was appointed to. I wholeheartedly agree that a salary of £200,000 is excessive whether for her or the parachute man. My point is that they make the claims to be worth the pay and therefore they should accept the consequences when those same justifications bite them. I think a pension reported to be £1.5 million is some compensation, particularly as her lawyers have stated that she was in negotiation with Haringey about a severance package to enable her to resign before the Ofsted report was published.
Incidentally as a trade unionist I have sympathy for her about the way in which she was dismissed, but I am more than aware that these sorts of managers have colluded in destroying employment rights for the likes of me so I shed no tears for them. I also have no sympathy for a person who in the midst of a horrific tragedy portrays herself as a victim vis-à-vis the Bulger case.
There appear to be some questions surfacing about the Ofsted report that Balls used to justify his peremptory sacking of Shoesmith. The allegation is that political pressure was applied to make the report as bad as possible ("spice it up" one could say!). Legal machinations are underway to get earlier drafts released.
In my experience of Audit reports of this nature, it is normal practice for the Audit or inspection agency to submit a draft copy of the report to the CEO of the inspected body "for the correction of any errors"
When Ofsted inspect a school they normally (the chief or lead inspector usually ) report to the HT, Staff and governing Body, and give them an opportunity to correct or suggest alternatives. It is usually 42 days later that the official report is published.
Ofsted and other Inspection agencies are supposed to be "Quango's" In other words they should not allow themselves to be influenced by Political pressure.
DEpends on which Ofsted report you are refering to. The October, after Baby Peter died, Ofsted gave Haringey a three-star rating out of four, saying it provided a good service for children, although it was later pointed out in parliament that this inspection had been carried out by a former employee of Ms. Shoesmith. You would be a touch cynical of this whether you were a politician or a lay person I would have thought.
Nihat Erol: Voltaire, I may have got it wrong but was she not from an education background? If you believe that ministers should only have portfolio’s for which they are qualified then patently she was not suitable for the post she was appointed to. I wholeheartedly agree that a salary of £200,000 is excessive whether for her or the parachute man. My point is that they make the claims to be worth the pay and therefore they should accept the consequences when those same justifications bite them. I think a pension reported to be £1.5 million is some compensation, particularly as her lawyers have stated that she was in negotiation with Haringey about a severance package to enable her to resign before the Ofsted report was published. Incidentally as a trade unionist I have sympathy for her about the way in which she was dismissed, but I am more than aware that these sorts of managers have colluded in destroying employment rights for the likes of me so I shed no tears for them. I also have no sympathy for a person who in the midst of a horrific tragedy portrays herself as a victim vis-à-vis the Bulger case.
You are right, she is from an education background, but if I remember correctly I have heard someone say at a SWTF event that the number of Directors of children's services with a social work qualification can be numbered on two hands! Also if you read what I said I only asked the question that ministers with some form of experience related to their portfolio would be a better option? I wholeheartedly agree that a 1.5 mill. pension is amoral and an afront to everyone else in the profession.
I am not sure about your shout about having no sympathy for her; her grievances came to the fore after the event, and true it was a tragedy, however the perptrators were caught and justice meted out, we can only wear a hair shirt for so long can't we?
In the sense that she has been used as some form of scapegoat by Balls and the Sun et al she is a victim whether we like it or not. Unfortunately what happened to her could happen to one of us but on a lesser scale. I guess I am not the only social worker that has seen one of their colleagues stitched up like a caister kipper by their manager.
It's clearly nonsense to expect a Director of Children's Services to carry the can for everything that may go wrong on their watch, even the death of a child. However, it is right that they carry the can if they directly influenced decision-making in this particular case or if the service they were managing was not fit for purpose, despite having had the time and resources to make it work.
Of course, there's always the argument that the boss should fall on their sword in all cases where a child dies, if only because it sends out the message of collective societal responsibility for the death of a child. In which case, I would also expect a few resignations from within the health and police services as well, especially bearing in mind that safeguarding children is everyone's responsibility. If this is to be the case, then there's an interesting discussion to be had about where the buck stops and whether it should stop at Mr. Balls, particularly in light of his apparent 'line-management' decision to oust Sharon Shoesmith. A decision, it also has to be said, that appears quite undemocratic given that it should be the local authority's reponsibility to both hire and fire its employees without being leaned on by the government - although it was a typically authoritarian new labour thing to do.
The problem is, it appears that any thorough investigation into the fitness of Ms. Shoesmith may well have been stymied by Mr. Balls - possibly in collusion with Ofsted - who may have interfered with due process. That is the issue here - that an individual has a right to be heard and properly represented in any action against them. Whether one agrees that Ms. Shoesmith should have resigned or been sacked, it is absolutely fundamental that due process is followed beacuse that is the fair and the right thing to do. Should it turn out to be the case that Mr. Balls did abuse his position then I would expect his resignation or, failing that, his dismissal - following due process of course.
It may well be a nonsense to expect executive officers to have accountability or take responsibility but if the sequence of events described in her court hearings are accurate, she was looking to bail out before the publication of the report. In the event, she did not think the pay off was good enough so she stood her ground and was subsequently sacked. If tehse are accurate, then there seems little creedence in seeing her dismissal as sudden an unconsidered.
“Miss Simler told the court how Mrs Shoesmith, her lawyer, Richard Penn; Dr Ita O’Donovan, the council’s chief executive; and Stuart Young, assistant chief executive, attended a series of meetings from November 20 onward at which the prospect of resignations in the event of a poor inspection report were discussed.
As it became clear that the report would be highly critical, George Meehan, the leader of the council, and Liz Santry, the cabinet member for children’s services, prepared to step down and Mrs Shoesmith was urged to do consider doing likewise but, according to Miss Simler, a package could not be agreed.
“Dr O’Donovan told the claimant (Mrs Shoesmith) that a planned exit would be better for her and Haringey, rather than wait for the outcome of the inspection which appeared increasingly likely to be negative,” Miss Simler told the court.
“There were further discussions about the press, the claimant’s reputation and resignations that were likely to take place if the outcome was negative.
“The claimant, Mrs Shoesmith, agreed that Mr Young could explore her pension position with the relevant civil service department.”
The case has been fast-tracked in the High Court for October 7 and is being supported by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) who are understood to be helping with the legal costs.
Mrs Shoesmith has also lodged a breach of contract case in the High Court which could see her win a payout equivalent to a year's salary.
In addition, the 56-year-old has filed unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination claims at Watford employment tribunal which could see her entitled to hundreds of thousands of pounds more.”
In her interview with the Guardian this description was given:
“She says she was always worried that social workers were spending 70% of their time in front of computers instead of with families, although she didn't pass this worry on to her superiors; as for targets, if she didn't meet them, it had a direct effect on her budget, which was already forcing her to get rid of staff .
“Acquaintances speak of her as authoritative, arrogant and “dismissive of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to her view”. It was perhaps this will of iron that was her undoing.”
Its always dangerous to quote from one side only in a Court battle. Fortunately, those making the judgment will have heard from all parties and will hopefully be able to make a fair and balanced conclusion.
Hence my cautoin in saying "If these are accurate"