Shoesmith and compensation

16 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Is it not the media that should be held accountable for naming and shaming her?

Why exactly?
People in PUBLIC positons ARE accountable to the public.
The highest of that is the Government and their MP's, so why should she be any different?
Or would you rather go back to the days where everything was hidden by the powers that be?
I am sure there are things that are of interest to you from a public persona, that you are glad you know about?
Most people I would guess are glad she was named and humiliated by her and her inadequate department, who failed a young child which led to his horrific death.
I don't believe only one person was accountable for what happened. There are far more than that, a multitude of errors, but some seem to accept that if someone is accountable then the problem will not go away.
I believe she should of been sacked but I don't believe she should have named.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Is it not the media that should be held accountable for naming and shaming her?

Why exactly?
People in PUBLIC positons ARE accountable to the public.
The highest of that is the Government and their MP's, so why should she be any different?
Or would you rather go back to the days where everything was hidden by the powers that be?
I am sure there are things that are of interest to you from a public persona, that you are glad you know about?
Most people I would guess are glad she was named and humiliated by her and her inadequate department, who failed a young child which led to his horrific death.
I don't believe only one person was accountable for what happened. There are far more than that, a multitude of errors, but some seem to accept that if someone is accountable then the problem will not go away.
I believe she should of been sacked but I don't believe she should have named.
Of course there was more than one person responsible...two social workers were sacked. The Doctor who could not spot a broken back was disciplined, and yes he also should have been sacked.
This case was made even worse by the fact this council's social services had already been involved with a inquiry through the death of another child. So as this was now the second serious case leading to a childs death, I would have thought lessons had been learned....obviously not.
Can I ask what purpose would it have been to only have sacked her? Why in your opinion should she have had her anonymity protected?
Would as an example you have liked the MP's and their expenses hidden from the public also? So we would never know which of those MP's were greedy gits,or as another example would have preferred Ian Huntley to have never been named?
Or what about the Moors murderers? Should they also have not been named?

16 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Is it not the media that should be held accountable for naming and shaming her?

Why exactly?
People in PUBLIC positons ARE accountable to the public.
The highest of that is the Government and their MP's, so why should she be any different?
Or would you rather go back to the days where everything was hidden by the powers that be?
I am sure there are things that are of interest to you from a public persona, that you are glad you know about?
Most people I would guess are glad she was named and humiliated by her and her inadequate department, who failed a young child which led to his horrific death.
I don't believe only one person was accountable for what happened. There are far more than that, a multitude of errors, but some seem to accept that if someone is accountable then the problem will not go away.
I believe she should of been sacked but I don't believe she should have named.
Of course there was more than one person responsible...two social workers were sacked. The Doctor who could not spot a broken back was disciplined, and yes he also should have been sacked.
This case was made even worse by the fact this council's social services had already been involved with a inquiry through the death of another child. So as this was now the second serious case leading to a childs death, I would have thought lessons had been learned....obviously not.
Can I ask what purpose would it have been to only have sacked her? Why in your opinion should she have had her anonymity protected?
Would as an example you have liked the MP's and their expenses hidden from the public also? So we would never know which of those MP's were greedy gits,or as another example would have preferred Ian Huntley to have never been named?
Or what about the Moors murderers? Should they also have not been named?
I can not believe you can compare her to the Moors murderers or Iam Huntley, I don't believe she planned for children to die.
Ian huntley and the Moors murderers were a threat to society and we needed to be warned of the dangers
This I believe this is the problem with naming and shaming her, she might have made mistakes, but I dont believe she is a threat to society.

16 Sep 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I can not believe you can compare her to the Moors murderers or Iam Huntley, I don't believe she planned for children to die.
Ian huntley and the Moors murderers were a threat to society and we needed to be warned of the dangers
This I believe this is the problem with naming and shaming her, she might have made mistakes, but I dont believe she is a threat to society.

Why can I not compare? Or are you saying that only those YOU believe should be named and shamed, should be? Ah got it.
Huntley and the Moors murderers were/are never going to be released into the public domain again, so why would it make a difference naming them? They are never going to be a danger again so why are you ok with them being named even though they will never be released, or be a danger again?
Oh yes she made mistakes,she may not be a threat to society, but she certainly is a threat to a child's future safety....that is why she will never work with children again....why is that I wonder?
What about the MP's? Were you ok with naming them?