OK Kent I will bite. Why is this individual smug and arrogant? Im not looking for verifiable sources lord knows Ive never seen one off you yet. Im more interested in why you think she is. You see I have this intuition that you fear her and therefore dislike her because she is female, more intelligent, better educated and better paid than you. Or am I totally wrong?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Shoesmith and compensation
Benny boy.
Your above comments are so NOT worthy of a reply.
If you really do not know the answer make I make a suggestion?
Go back and read and then read again my comments. If you think I am going to waste my time repeating myself to someone, who simply is trying to get a reaction then you can.....
Flounce?
Your above comments are so NOT worthy of a reply.
If you really do not know the answer make I make a suggestion?
Go back and read and then read again my comments. If you think I am going to waste my time repeating myself to someone, who simply is trying to get a reaction then you can.....
Flounce?
Quote by kentswingers777
Staffs your comment " how about I suggest another one? Public outcry was so great he offered a sacrificial lamb to turn attention away from his own and the government's failings " ?
What the heck do you base that one on, or is that just a snipe at Ed Balls. As his name suggests, at least he has some balls.
It's based on common sense and experience, who is ultimately responsible for the provision and governance of child protection procedures?
Who paid the price for the 'weapons of mass destruction' deception which directly led to the Iraq invasion and the later 'sexing up of the dossier' revelation?
Google Dr. David Kelly, for sacrificial lamb usage.
No I do not know what his investigation was, but the conclusion is pretty obvious, he sacked her.
The conclusion isn't obvious in anyway, all that is obvious is his decision.
Now if you are really telling me that an educated clever Minister like this guy is, decides at a whim to sack someone who he obviously knew would try for compensation, on the basis of using her as a " sacrificial lamb ", then you really must be up the wrong gum tree.
And you are in cloud cuckoo land if you believe for one second being employed by the government is any less likely to result in unfair dismissal than any other employer. Someone always has to pay the price, as ever it tends to someone just important enough to quieten the pitchfork mob whilst those truly responsible carry on doing the same things that caused the problems in the first place.
What about this one....he was called to Downing Street by the PM, to explain this tragedy with regards to baby P. He is then ordered to hold an in depth investigation into Harringays workings and Shoesmiths involvement.
He then finds out that she and her department have been negligent in this childs then decides to sack her for gross misconduct, of which he is entitled to do?
A reasonable suggestion, as long as she was dismissed in accordance with her contract of employment and more importantly the law, there should'nt be a problem, however, time will tell won't it?
That seems to me much nearer the mark than your suggestion. Still we will wait and see eh? But whatever the outcome she will NEVER work in childrens services again. Who would touch this smug arrogant woman?
So she may well end up getting " blood money " from our ridiculous tribunal system, but her career is finished.
Once again, your hatred and prejudice shows through, if she wins her case it will be because she was treated in a way that was against the law, it won't be blood money, it will be fair compensation for her treatment. Why can't you in your reactionary, knee jerk world see that? The same laws exist to protect everyone, society cannot decide which laws apply to individual cases.
In capitals for the hard of understanding "SHE DID NOT KILL THAT CHILD" Those that did have been tried, convicted and sentenced. The enquiry should take place, in public, by an independent body, not by a government watchdog, the enquiry should take all parts of child protection legislation into account from top to bottom, including, staffing levels, case loads, liason with other agencies, powers and accountability. Then you may get a system that actually works and is not reliant on people working themselves to death to simply 'keep it afloat'.
Yes I know it is the parents that ultimately are to blame but....and here is the but....Social services are there to protect children from further harm, and this child was under Harringays direction, and they failed. Whatever has happened we have a dead child in a grave, that because of incompetence from people at Harringay, could and should have been saved, and that is the worst thing about this whole sorry case.
But is it not realistic to understand no matter what agencies do, no matter how good the procedures, how harsh the penalties and how many people get thrown to the lions, children will still be killed by their parents, you only have to google the right words and it will give you rafts and rafts of pages of horrific stories, disturbing stats and quotes that will chill. It will not stop, no matter what happens, you think lessons have been learnt from this tragedy? You couldn't be more wrong....it's still happening and always will until we take humans out of the loop, for one reason, humans are fallible, we make mistakes, we make bad judgements and we can be decieved.
If you don't agree, i expect should you ever find yourself in a situation like this, you will of course happily fall on your sword, accept your life and career are to be destroyed, your family to suffer, you are to recive death threats and be demonised and hated by people who take no account of the years of good service you have given, but rather sit in ivory towers and spew bile, while all the time never having the guts to do it themselves? All of course without a single murmur of protest......Like hell you would.
Sex God
^^^ For the usual suspects! ^^^
T'is a quite grim round of applause. In my mind quite appropriate though?
;)Kenty? I sometimes wish I had the courage of your conviction? And your certainty? Unfortunately my world is full of several million shades of grey? :? It's a bit rubbish!
Black and white would be soooooo much easier, but then, rainbows would look a bit shite, eh? ;) Is it really so easy to hang someone out to dry as you make out? D'you think it might be a bit harder if it was you tightening up the noose? :? 
I suspect it would?This poor bloody social worker you're so intent on castigating was given an an almost impossible task. Her task was . . . . 'Make sure noone kills their kid on your watch love, cos otherwise, we're right in the shit!' How exactly was she meant to do that then? :? :dunno: It's not possible, no matter how much you pay her, no matter how good she was, because kids will die on her watch, and that will be the fault of parents who, week in, week out, kill their kids with not so much as a second thought.
Kids die all the time, as unpalatable as that may be. It's usually the fault of those who murder their own offspring though? :? Not some poor bugger who finds herself being paraded through the pages of the Daily bloody Mail, who now finds herself without a job, despite what her legally binding employment contract has to say? :?
N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
^^^ For the usual suspects! ^^^
T'is a quite grim round of applause. In my mind quite appropriate though?
Kenty? I sometimes wish I had the courage of your conviction? And your certainty? Unfortunately my world is full of several million shades of grey? :? It's a bit rubbish!
This poor bloody social worker you're so intent on castigating was given an an almost impossible task. Her task was . . . . 'Make sure noone kills their kid on your watch love, cos otherwise, we're right in the shit!' How exactly was she meant to do that then? :? :dunno: It's not possible, no matter how much you pay her, no matter how good she was, because kids will die on her watch, and that will be the fault of parents who, week in, week out, kill their kids with not so much as a second thought.
Kids die all the time, as unpalatable as that may be. It's usually the fault of those who murder their own offspring though? :? Not some poor bugger who finds herself being paraded through the pages of the Daily bloody Mail, who now finds herself without a job, despite what her legally binding employment contract has to say? :?
N x x x ;)
Neil,
whilst I agree with you that kids die all the time, no matter how unpalatable that may be, that doesn't detract from the fact people in positions of authority are charged with implementing and maintaining systems designed to hopefully reduce the risk of such things happening. If they are found wanting in that role, then they should face the consequences.....I would in my position and no doubt you would in yours?
I'm not trying to pre-empt the outcome of this case in any way and if she is exhonerated then she should be compensated accordingly but if it is found that her department failed the child in question due to serious operational deficiencies, why should she recieve anything? There is too much reward for failure these days....in both the private and public sectors.
Quote by neilinleeds
^^^ For the usual suspects! ^^^
T'is a quite grim round of applause. In my mind quite appropriate though?
Kenty? I sometimes wish I had the courage of your conviction? And your certainty? Unfortunately my world is full of several million shades of grey? :? It's a bit rubbish!
This poor bloody social worker you're so intent on castigating was given an an almost impossible task. Her task was . . . . 'Make sure noone kills their kid on your watch love, cos otherwise, we're right in the shit!' How exactly was she meant to do that then? :? :dunno: It's not possible, no matter how much you pay her, no matter how good she was, because kids will die on her watch, and that will be the fault of parents who, week in, week out, kill their kids with not so much as a second thought.
Kids die all the time, as unpalatable as that may be. It's usually the fault of those who murder their own offspring though? :? Not some poor bugger who finds herself being paraded through the pages of the Daily bloody Mail, who now finds herself without a job, despite what her legally binding employment contract has to say? :?
N x x x ;)
Stop it Neil, you will be making me cry next.
HER JOB is to try and save kids from being abused or worse killed by parents or partners of those parents.
Or should I say HER department are given that task.
It was not just her that let that child down, it was a whole system of idiots, most of whom have since been sacked.
I know only too well the figures of kids losing their lives, it equates to about one a day, but in this case the child was visited by social workers many times, fuck even a doctor failed to notice a broken back ffs.
Shoesmith was one of many that were responsible for saving that child, and her department had many occasions of which to do this IF any of them had bothered to pay attention. They took their eyes off the ball and it led to this poor child dying a horrid death, an unimaginable death.
As I have said before she WAS the head of a department in Harringay, that not long before had another child die in their care. So obviously lessons were not learned, and someone has to pay for that.
Her whole attitude in this sorry affair, stunk. No sorry no kiss my arse. Other than to wave about pieces of shit paper with figures on them. Yeah figures save lives don't they? Well not in this child's case it did not.
Enough people signed many petitions to get her out. That did not sway Mr Balls in his decision. In this sorry case I will back the Ministers decision because it goes some way to justice for that baby.
Too many people nowadays are so quick to defend the indefensible. This is one of those occasions and next people will be bleating about HER human rights.
Any rights or financial gain she may have had, went when that child took it's final breath, in a place full of squalor and a parent that should have hung for what she let that animal do to her son.
Shoesmith is as responsible for that childs death, as her department left that child to die.
Let's wait and see the outcome in a court, but whatever happens in MY mind, and that is all that matters to me, is she will never work with kids again, and even if she gets ten million quid, as long as she is not put in charge of a child's welfare and safety ever again, then that will do for me and many many thousands of others too.
Sex God
that doesn't detract from the fact people in positions of authority are charged with implementing and maintaining systems designed to hopefully reduce the risk of such things happening. If they are found wanting in that role, then they should face the consequences.....I would in my position and no doubt you would in yours?
Indeed I would Max. I would hope though that I could count on my employer to bear their particular burden properly, and ensure that they had put in place the resources I need to ensure that I'm actually capable of managing this whole life-or-death role I find myself with responsibility for?
I would hope that, should my department generally be found wanting, then my employer would have the balls to admit that, well, actually, it's not necessarily one individual's fault as it goes, it's actually a departmental / structural / financial / one-of-those-things kind of things.
I'd hope that, rather than taking the easy deflect the attention away from the real problem by hanging some nobody out to dry, in full public glare, someone with real power might actually grow a set of balls and take responsibility, and put some proper funding in place, and think outside the box as far as future porevention goes?
If they then have the audacity to expect me to slink away gracefully with my tail between my legs without kicking up too much of a fuss, I'm not sure I'd go all that quietly meself, because I have a sneaking suspicion I'd want to highlight just how huge the failings in the system were, primarily because, having gone into that system freely, I'd be somewhat disgusted with what has happened to the profession, and I'd be buggered if I'd be carrying every single one of the profession's subsequent failings on my broad bleedin' shoulders, knowing what I know?
It's outrageous.
N x x x ;)
God knows what she did then for 130 grand a year.
Yes a vast sum of money to most people...no?
One hundred and thirty thousand pounds every year. For that money she IS responsible, as that is why she is paid that kind of money.
To take responsibility when things go wrong, but as we know when people in all walks of life get caught out, they get that big yard broom out and sweep it over to someone else to take the flak.
Was,nt me guv, it was them...
Yes a vast sum of money to most people...no?
One hundred and thirty thousand pounds every year. For that money she IS responsible, as that is why she is paid that kind of money.
To take responsibility when things go wrong, but as we know when people in all walks of life get caught out, they get that big yard broom out and sweep it over to someone else to take the flak.
Was,nt me guv, it was them...
Sex God
All seems like a case of corporate responsibility to mee. The problem stems from its pubicity maybe. Of course the head of a Department should hold the responsibility and ultimatly should pay a price if systems and methods were not implemented in the correct way.
I don't agree with Kent on this issue, I personally believe this woman is doing what her lawyers tell her to do in the way she handles herself publicly. Lets be honest, anything she says or does is going to ne jumped on and squeezed dry by various media. By saying nothing, at he moment, she is protecting herself, and why not, she has that right. I'd rather the trial played out in court rather than in the papers.
As for this thread I do believe that mosdt of it has been really good. I applaud Kent for debating, and he has, with passion and vigour. OK so a couple of times it gets a bit personal but no more or less personal than others have been as well.
Both sides of the arguement have been brought to bare with a degree of knowledge of whats in the public domain, whether good or not is another thing, I think that the dogmatic tenacity of Kent has brought out some good debate from others and I certainly think I've gained from this thread.
I realise that central to the issues brought up is the life of a child and that should never be forgotten. What must be seen to be done is for these issues to be abled to be aired and discussed dispassionately and parallel to the emotional ones.
Good thread where I believe that the debate has caused people to look at and try and understand and challenge their own perceptions as well as other. It succeeds in my view
I don't agree with Kent on this issue, I personally believe this woman is doing what her lawyers tell her to do in the way she handles herself publicly. Lets be honest, anything she says or does is going to ne jumped on and squeezed dry by various media. By saying nothing, at he moment, she is protecting herself, and why not, she has that right. I'd rather the trial played out in court rather than in the papers.
As for this thread I do believe that mosdt of it has been really good. I applaud Kent for debating, and he has, with passion and vigour. OK so a couple of times it gets a bit personal but no more or less personal than others have been as well.
Both sides of the arguement have been brought to bare with a degree of knowledge of whats in the public domain, whether good or not is another thing, I think that the dogmatic tenacity of Kent has brought out some good debate from others and I certainly think I've gained from this thread.
I realise that central to the issues brought up is the life of a child and that should never be forgotten. What must be seen to be done is for these issues to be abled to be aired and discussed dispassionately and parallel to the emotional ones.
Good thread where I believe that the debate has caused people to look at and try and understand and challenge their own perceptions as well as other. It succeeds in my view
Quote by neilinleeds
that doesn't detract from the fact people in positions of authority are charged with implementing and maintaining systems designed to hopefully reduce the risk of such things happening. If they are found wanting in that role, then they should face the consequences.....I would in my position and no doubt you would in yours?
Indeed I would Max. I would hope though that I could count on my employer to bear their particular burden properly, and ensure that they had put in place the resources I need to ensure that I'm actually capable of managing this whole life-or-death role I find myself with responsibility for?
Ia would hope that, should my department generally be found wanting, then my employer would have the balls to admit that, well, actually, it's not necessarily one individual's fault as it goes, it's ctually a departmental / structural / financial / one-of-those-things kind of things. I'd hope that, rather than taking the easy deflect the attention away from the real problem by hanging some nobody out to dry, in full public glare, someone with real power might actually grow a set of balls and take responsibility, and put some proper funding in place, and think outside the box as far as future porevention goes?
If they then have the audacity to expect me to slink away gracefully with my tail between my legs without kicking up too much of a fuss, I'm not sure I'd go all that quietly meself, because I have a sneaking suspicion I'd want to highlight just how huge the failings in the system were, primarily because, having gone into that system freely, I'd be somewhat disgusted with what has happened to the profession, and I'd be buggered if I'd be carrying every single one of the profession's subsequent failings on my broad bleedin' shoulders, knowing what I know?
It's outrageous.
N x x x ;)
I would agree with all you say Neil if its proven that this case was due to the failings in the entire system.....but ( and with special reference to the bit I have highlighted) sometimes no matter how good the systems are and how much funding is available, it can be simply down to rank bad management and the wrong person being in the job. The role of management is to manage and if Shoesmith was aware of deficiencies in her department and as you suggest these were down to the "system" it would her responsibility to flag these up with her employer. If she has in fact done this, then I'm sure she will win her case.
Ed Balls never dismissed Shoesmith from Haringey Council, that was the council leaders who did that.
After the Inquiry that was held, which wasn't into the baby P case per se but was into the entire Social Services Dept. of Haringey Council, it was found that the department was left accountable for a series of serious errors. these errors had nothing to do with underfunding but more with complacency and inadequate management of their own procedures.
Ed Balls then made the decision to remove her, not to dismiss, this effectively suspended her from duties. Haringey Council then made the decision based on the inquiry to dismiss her.
As departmental head she carried overall responsibility for the mis-management of the department therefore the buck stopped with her.
I hope they find at the tribunal that the council followed Employment Law correctly in dismissing Shoesmith.
For the record the 2 doctors involved have been suspended pending inquiry.
The police are under inquiry into the case.
The council themselves are under inquiry to potential failings on their behalf.
So no-one person is being made a scapegoat, she is just the first of many possible dismissals.
References for the above has been gleaned from the following sources;
"A litany of failure by Haringey". Lynne Featherstone MP. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
"Doctor suspended in Baby P probe". BBC News. 2009-02-19. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
"Doctor suspended in Baby P probe". BBC News. 2008-11-27. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
Bell, Vanessa (2008-12-03). "'Baby P was clumsy with a high pain threshold,' Council's astonishing verdict on toddler as it emerges officials are investigating ANOTHER abuse case". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
"Sacked Baby P chief defends case". BBC News. 2009-02-07. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
"Statement on Sharon Showsmith".
Beckford, Martin (2009-04-29). "Baby P: Haringey Council sacks three managers and a social worker". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
"Official sacked over Baby P case". BBC News. 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
"Baby P councillors told to resign". BBC News. 2008-11-24. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
"Councillors survive Baby P calls". BBC News. 2008-11-24. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
Bingham, John (2008-11-14). "Baby P: Whistleblower's concerns about care scandal council 'pushed from pillar to post'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
The Lord Laming (2009-03-12). "The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report" (PDF). The Stationary Office. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
"Action pledged over child safety". BBC News. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
After the Inquiry that was held, which wasn't into the baby P case per se but was into the entire Social Services Dept. of Haringey Council, it was found that the department was left accountable for a series of serious errors. these errors had nothing to do with underfunding but more with complacency and inadequate management of their own procedures.
Ed Balls then made the decision to remove her, not to dismiss, this effectively suspended her from duties. Haringey Council then made the decision based on the inquiry to dismiss her.
As departmental head she carried overall responsibility for the mis-management of the department therefore the buck stopped with her.
I hope they find at the tribunal that the council followed Employment Law correctly in dismissing Shoesmith.
For the record the 2 doctors involved have been suspended pending inquiry.
The police are under inquiry into the case.
The council themselves are under inquiry to potential failings on their behalf.
So no-one person is being made a scapegoat, she is just the first of many possible dismissals.
References for the above has been gleaned from the following sources;
"A litany of failure by Haringey". Lynne Featherstone MP. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
"Doctor suspended in Baby P probe". BBC News. 2009-02-19. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
"Doctor suspended in Baby P probe". BBC News. 2008-11-27. Retrieved 2008-11-27.
Bell, Vanessa (2008-12-03). "'Baby P was clumsy with a high pain threshold,' Council's astonishing verdict on toddler as it emerges officials are investigating ANOTHER abuse case". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
"Sacked Baby P chief defends case". BBC News. 2009-02-07. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
"Statement on Sharon Showsmith".
Beckford, Martin (2009-04-29). "Baby P: Haringey Council sacks three managers and a social worker". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
"Official sacked over Baby P case". BBC News. 2008-12-01. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
"Baby P councillors told to resign". BBC News. 2008-11-24. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
"Councillors survive Baby P calls". BBC News. 2008-11-24. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
Bingham, John (2008-11-14). "Baby P: Whistleblower's concerns about care scandal council 'pushed from pillar to post'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-10-15.
The Lord Laming (2009-03-12). "The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report" (PDF). The Stationary Office. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
"Action pledged over child safety". BBC News. 2009-03-12. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
There is no doubt that Sharon Shoesmith did not help herself in this case - the council made a fatal mistake by not apologising far earlier and showing more remorse. However, the way in which she was hounded by the media was appalling. Let us first consider OFSTED's role. Months before the Baby P storm, they inspected Haringey and graded it as good. Just a short time later, after the Baby P storm erupts, they are sent in by Ed Balls and say it has serious weaknesses. How mightily convenient for the Secretary of State. Yet no-one has seriously questioned how OFSTED got it so wrong in the first place. I suspect that they didn't and the report was written to suit the government's agenda. They wanted the spotlight off them and back on Haringey. To read some of the tabloid coverage, you would think Shoesmith and her team had committed the murder herself. I firmly believe the reason why she was hounded as the villain of the piece was the media's obsession that there always has to be someone to blame when something goes wrong. It eases the public consciousness to know that it's not a reflection on the state of the nation, but is down to the failings of someone in authority. It is the mentality of the pack and does absolutely nothing to tackle the numbers of youngsters who are killed by their parents every year (which incidentally, has remained roughly the same for many years). What should worry all of us is that there is a massive national shortage of social workers which is not helped by hysterical reporting of cases such as this. Who can blame people for not wanting to become a social worker when at the back of their mind they know they could end up being the target of such disgraceful hounding by the media, with the government riding shotgun as a willing accomplice? Haringey faces an even more difficult job recruiting social workers now - which makes the chance of another Baby P even more likely. But we can rest easy because we know Sharon Shoesmith has got her just desserts. Well done everyone!
I would also add that the problem with the reporting of social work cases is that, due to confidentiality, councils cannot comment and you only get the parents side of the story. Hence the case in Dundee where it is being portrayed that the council are taking children from a family because they are overweight. IMHO there are possibly wider neglect issues, particularly as the council has said that obesity on its own would never lead them to take children from parents. But of course that wouldn't make a good headlinefor the media would it? Of course, if one of those children were to die they would no doubt be screaming for someone's head to roll! It is little wonder that social workers are not held in high regard when the public are fed such skewed stories about their vital work.
So are you saying then that some councils will NOT let people adopt if they smoke, false?
Is that a media smoke screen too? It is a fact, check Gaunties sacking from Talk Sport for the truth on that one. Redbridge council I think it was.
So if they can stop people from adopting because a person may smoke, even if it is only in the garden, then they can put a block on people for being obese.I do not trust a local council, as far as I could throw dog shit.
The thing with Offsted is a bit of a joke.
They inform of a visit sometimes three months in advance. So IF there is anything wrong with a school or pre school or Social services, they get a chance to put things right BEFORE a visit.
I would have thought common sense would have said NO notice of when they are coming, but to just turn up. That way they could much more easily be caught if they are not up to Offsted's standards.
That is like a copper warning you that another copper will be stopping you next Friday, and look at your illegal tyres. Of course you would get them done as you have been warned.
Then of course because you have been warned, the Offsted report passes with flying colours.....strange.
Is that a media smoke screen too? It is a fact, check Gaunties sacking from Talk Sport for the truth on that one. Redbridge council I think it was.
So if they can stop people from adopting because a person may smoke, even if it is only in the garden, then they can put a block on people for being obese.I do not trust a local council, as far as I could throw dog shit.
The thing with Offsted is a bit of a joke.
They inform of a visit sometimes three months in advance. So IF there is anything wrong with a school or pre school or Social services, they get a chance to put things right BEFORE a visit.
I would have thought common sense would have said NO notice of when they are coming, but to just turn up. That way they could much more easily be caught if they are not up to Offsted's standards.
That is like a copper warning you that another copper will be stopping you next Friday, and look at your illegal tyres. Of course you would get them done as you have been warned.
Then of course because you have been warned, the Offsted report passes with flying colours.....strange.
Quote by kentswingers777
So are you saying then that some councils will NOT let people adopt if they smoke, false?
Is that a media smoke screen too? It is a fact, check Gaunties sacking from Talk Sport for the truth on that one. Redbridge council I think it was.
Well, rather than trusting our old friend Gaunty (and can I suggest at this point you make a point of reading Monday's Independent columns by Matthew Norman for an expose of his many contradictions), let's look at the facts shall we?
Redbridge's ban does not apply to adoptive parents- only fosterparents.
And then it only applies specifically to:
"Children under five, those with a disability who are unable to play outside or those with respiratory problems."
And this is because...
"Recent scientific evidence has shown that "secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease," and that young children are particularly susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because their lungs and airways are small and their immune systems are immature.
This means children exposed to smoke are at an increased risk of:
cot death
asthma
middle ear disease
pneumonia and
bronchitis."
Sounds very sensible to me. Would you let a parent with any other drug addiction foster a child?
And in addition:
"Redbridge Council will offer support to its current foster carers who smoke to help them give up."
It's all here for you to see...
Quote by kentswingers777
The thing with Offsted is a bit of a joke.
They inform of a visit sometimes three months in advance. So IF there is anything wrong with a school or pre school or Social services, they get a chance to put things right BEFORE a visit.
Wrong again!
In fact schools get a maximum of five days notice, and generally it's just two. A bit of simple research proves this one...
As for social services departments, they get four weeks notice - not 12 weeks. And the reason for this is because it takes time to collect the latest views of children, young people and parents and carers prior to the inspection. Don't believe me? Check this out for the proof (page 16):
2/search?q=cache:yOz7Y-Sd22UJ:
Gaunty is there to provoke opinion and debate, like all columnists. He couldn't run the country, nor would he have any desire to actually make difficult decisions rather than spout populist rhetoric. I note he's just been binned from his Sun column by the new editor, but instead spun it that he was giving it up to concentrate on the much less popular Sun Radio. Whatever you say Gaunty!!!
Ah see ya a Gaunty fan then?
Five days six weeks nine years, the point was they are TOLD when Offsted are coming. They are warned about an inspection. How does that catch them out when they have prior notice??
Foster parents do a very worthwhile job, and can have kids for years, I know of one such family.
IF someone smokes they I would presume would not smoke in front of kids in the house. So even though FOSTER parents would go out into the garden for a smoke, that is still not good enough.
I cannot see the logic at all where they are ok with people that will adopt, but not ones that foster. If they smoke they fecking smoke.
Ah the old " scientific evidence " eh? The same ones that say the world is doomed if we continue to use our cars.
Ya know people blame everything on smokers from gout to the train not arriving on time.
As for a drug addiction, smoking is NOT illegal, you make the drug addiction comment sound sinister.
I am not so sure Gaunty could not run the country, he could hardly have done worse than this bunch of for his Sun column, have you any proof to say he was ousted by a new editor, or is that YOUR spin on it?
Five days six weeks nine years, the point was they are TOLD when Offsted are coming. They are warned about an inspection. How does that catch them out when they have prior notice??
Foster parents do a very worthwhile job, and can have kids for years, I know of one such family.
IF someone smokes they I would presume would not smoke in front of kids in the house. So even though FOSTER parents would go out into the garden for a smoke, that is still not good enough.
I cannot see the logic at all where they are ok with people that will adopt, but not ones that foster. If they smoke they fecking smoke.
Ah the old " scientific evidence " eh? The same ones that say the world is doomed if we continue to use our cars.
Ya know people blame everything on smokers from gout to the train not arriving on time.
As for a drug addiction, smoking is NOT illegal, you make the drug addiction comment sound sinister.
I am not so sure Gaunty could not run the country, he could hardly have done worse than this bunch of for his Sun column, have you any proof to say he was ousted by a new editor, or is that YOUR spin on it?
Quote by kentswingers777
Five days six weeks nine years, the point was they are TOLD when Offsted are coming. They are warned about an inspection. How does that catch them out when they have prior notice??
They can't just turn up unannounced! The headteacher, the director, the managers, the staff have to clear their diaries to meet them. It is not sinister - it is just sensible planning! What's the point in them arriving if there's no-one for them to speak to? Doh! Doh! Doh!
Quote by kentswingers777
Foster parents do a very worthwhile job, and can have kids for years, I know of one such family.
IF someone smokes they I would presume would not smoke in front of kids in the house. So even though FOSTER parents would go out into the garden for a smoke, that is still not good enough.
You have conveniently ignored my point that this is mainly targeted at foster parents where children are more vulnerable to second hand smoke. It is not an absolute ban. The point is that the social workers aren't in the house 24/7 so wouldn't know if what they are saying about smoking in the garden is correct. Remember Baby P and the parents pulling the wool over the eyes of social workers?
Quote by kentswingers777
I cannot see the logic at all where they are ok with people that will adopt, but not ones that foster. If they smoke they fecking smoke.
Because where they adopt they take on the parental responsibility and the child is no longer in the care of social services. So the local authority isn't the corporate parent any more.
Quote by kentswingers777
Ya know people blame everything on smokers from gout to the train not arriving on time.
I am not a scientist, and I am sure you are not either. So I tend to believe the scientists when they say there is proof that second hand tobacco kills. If cigarettes were invented today, they'd be outlawed. Most smokers would love to give up. The state is trying to help them!
Quote by kentswingers777
I am not so sure Gaunty could not run the country, he could hardly have done worse than this bunch of for his Sun coloumn, have you any proof to say he was ousted by a new editor, or is that YOUR spin on it?
He won't have been ousted by anyone else!
Let's look at some of his great rhetoric, shall we...
Gaunty: Anton du Beck, Carol Thatcher and Ron Atkindon's careers should not have been blighted by one offensive comment - "Grow up and realise that sticks and stones may break your bones but names etc"
The same man rang Matthew Norman and said: "I'm not having you make out I'm thick." Sticks and stones, Gaunty, sticks and stones...
Gaunty: The man who admitted he failed the 11 plus, but still supports the grammar system, and whose radio show has recently included words such as "pr**ks" and "ar*e".
And who told Matthew Norman: "I don't care what you write, you c***,but I'm not having you make out I'm thick".
Gaunty: The man who asked a victim of domestic violence who'd had a steam iron branded on to his arm, his lap doused with boiling water and cigarettes stubbed out on his penis: "So you weren't enjoying it or anything?"
Gaunty: The man who put Rolf Harris in his top 10 of all time greatest Brits.
And you want this man to run the country!!!!
Quote by Stevie J
So are you saying then that some councils will NOT let people adopt if they smoke, false?
Is that a media smoke screen too? It is a fact, check Gaunties sacking from Talk Sport for the truth on that one. Redbridge council I think it was.
Well, rather than trusting our old friend Gaunty (and can I suggest at this point you make a point of reading Monday's Independent columns by Matthew Norman for an expose of his many contradictions), let's look at the facts shall we?
Redbridge's ban does not apply to adoptive parents- only fosterparents.
And then it only applies specifically to:
"Children under five, those with a disability who are unable to play outside or those with respiratory problems."
And this is because...
"Recent scientific evidence has shown that "secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease," and that young children are particularly susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because their lungs and airways are small and their immune systems are immature.
This means children exposed to smoke are at an increased risk of:
cot death
asthma
middle ear disease
pneumonia and
bronchitis."
Sounds very sensible to me. Would you let a parent with any other drug addiction foster a child?
And in addition:
"Redbridge Council will offer support to its current foster carers who smoke to help them give up."
It's all here for you to see...
Quote by kentswingers777
The thing with Offsted is a bit of a joke.
They inform of a visit sometimes three months in advance. So IF there is anything wrong with a school or pre school or Social services, they get a chance to put things right BEFORE a visit.
Wrong again!
In fact schools get a maximum of five days notice, and generally it's just two. A bit of simple research proves this one...
As for social services departments, they get four weeks notice - not 12 weeks. And the reason for this is because it takes time to collect the latest views of children, young people and parents and carers prior to the inspection. Don't believe me? Check this out for the proof (page 16):
2/search?q=cache:yOz7Y-Sd22UJ:
Gaunty is there to provoke opinion and debate, like all columnists. He couldn't run the country, nor would he have any desire to actually make difficult decisions rather than spout populist rhetoric. I note he's just been binned from his Sun column by the new editor, but instead spun it that he was giving it up to concentrate on the much less popular Sun Radio. Whatever you say Gaunty!!!
Childrens services departments now get unannounced inspections as well.
Sex God
I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if I'm repeating anything already said.
The fact her sacking was all over the papers is irrelavent. If she went for ANY job her employment history would be enquired into. At which point it would become clear where she had worked, what her postion was and the circumstances of her leaving that job.
Unless she skipped that period of her life and then she would have to explain why there is a gap in her employment history of x-many years. Unless she falsified her CV to claim she was doing something else.
Even with a full D-notice on the press there is absolutely no reason why her employment history would be protected from legitimate enquiry. Particularly for any child-related jobs.
No organisation with the remotest connection to the care of children (including the kids section of Sainsbury's) would touch her with a barge-pole regardless.
As to whether her sacking was justified? Her postion was that of the top bod in charge. The buck stopped there. She WAS responsible for her staff's actions/inactions. That is the defintion of her job.
If she knew what was going on - she was responsible for fixing it. If she didn't know what was going on - she was responsible for finding out and THEN fixing it!
The fact her sacking was all over the papers is irrelavent. If she went for ANY job her employment history would be enquired into. At which point it would become clear where she had worked, what her postion was and the circumstances of her leaving that job.
Unless she skipped that period of her life and then she would have to explain why there is a gap in her employment history of x-many years. Unless she falsified her CV to claim she was doing something else.
Even with a full D-notice on the press there is absolutely no reason why her employment history would be protected from legitimate enquiry. Particularly for any child-related jobs.
No organisation with the remotest connection to the care of children (including the kids section of Sainsbury's) would touch her with a barge-pole regardless.
As to whether her sacking was justified? Her postion was that of the top bod in charge. The buck stopped there. She WAS responsible for her staff's actions/inactions. That is the defintion of her job.
If she knew what was going on - she was responsible for fixing it. If she didn't know what was going on - she was responsible for finding out and THEN fixing it!
Master of Sex
Ms Shoesmith
Should she get compensation..
Well to my mind she should be lucky for having her life,why doesn't she think about the wasted life,she and her department let down big time,Considering all the paper space the case of baby p took up when it first came out.
Im surpirsied anyone would employ her to look after baby animals,let alone work in the health and welfare industry..
Well have i just been told her case was turned down..
So there is justice out there..And she shouldn't profit from her and her departments mistakes..
Should she get compensation..
Well to my mind she should be lucky for having her life,why doesn't she think about the wasted life,she and her department let down big time,Considering all the paper space the case of baby p took up when it first came out.
Im surpirsied anyone would employ her to look after baby animals,let alone work in the health and welfare industry..
Well have i just been told her case was turned down..
So there is justice out there..And she shouldn't profit from her and her departments mistakes..
Sex God
Quote by thevillians
Ms Shoesmith
Should she get compensation..
Well to my mind she should be lucky for having her life,why doesn't she think about the wasted life,she and her department let down big time,Considering all the paper space the case of baby p took up when it first came out.
Im surpirsied anyone would employ her to look after baby animals,let alone work in the health and welfare industry..
Well have i just been told her case was turned down..
So there is justice out there..And she shouldn't profit from her and her departments mistakes..
just need to add she and her goons and the inadequate council that employed her and her goons should face a private prosecution from the father and his family for their loss at 135k per year you take the job and do it not fake the job and pooh it
Quote by thevillians
Well have i just been told her case was turned down..
So there is justice out there..And she shouldn't profit from her and her departments mistakes..
She was turned-down for a judicial review.
The case proceeds towards an appeal and an employment tribunal.
Her dismissal was in breach of employment law, as far as I can see, and an employment court may well decide that she is entitled to compensation.
That does not mean she was dismissed incorrectly, just that she was dismissed unlawfully.
The judge said an employment tribunal was the best place to decide whether Haringey's dismissal of Shoesmith had been unfair
Sex God
Quote by GnV
There is a world of a difference between what is just and what is right, and it is easy to mix the two up.
probably the most wise and true words printed on this forum for a very long while while and pretty much sums up this country as a whole :thumbup:
Seems even after a few months away from her post at Harringay Council, she still has not learnt anything at all.
She has constantly played the pass the buck game, and now for her to say her sacking was " absurd " shows that the woman really is unaware of the public's reaction to her inadequacy's.
Still do not think she will be applying for too many jobs where looking after children are the order of the day....for a long time I think.
She has constantly played the pass the buck game, and now for her to say her sacking was " absurd " shows that the woman really is unaware of the public's reaction to her inadequacy's.
Still do not think she will be applying for too many jobs where looking after children are the order of the day....for a long time I think.
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.
