Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Christmas Gift Guide

Fury at pay for Baby P social work chief

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 December 2008
ANGRY MPs demanded last night to know why Haringey Council's former director of children's services remains on full pay despite being ousted over the Baby P tragedy.
Sharon Shoesmith was removed from her post by the government on Monday after a damning report into her department's shortcomings.

But the council, in north London, has so far only suspended her on full pay – reportedly £100,000 a year – while it p
rocesses the case.

Meanwhile, it emerged that Haringey was investigating a second incident in which a child was harmed through suspected abuse or neglect. The council said it was unconnected to Baby P's death and confirmed an independent review was under way.

David Cameron led calls for Ms Shoesmith to be sacked as soon as possible. The Tory leader said: "If they failed then they failed, and they shouldn't be kept on full pay. They shouldn't be rewarded for that failure.

"It's good that some of the people have been named and been suspended, but we still have a lot to do to get to the bottom of what really happened and to learn all the lessons."

Inspectors were sent into Haringey last month after the trial of those responsible for 17-month-old Baby P's death. The release of their report on Monday led to two senior councillors resigning, three managers being suspended and three social workers being taken off child protection duties.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 December 2008 10:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

sam the god,

03/12/2008 08:24:12
That would be all right if the MP’S did the same when they are being investigated they still get paid while under investigation. She is only suspended and as such is available to work and will be until the outcome of that investigation.
2

Stickman,

03/12/2008 09:49:00

Why is it that, although the report states quite clearly that this woman and her department failed in every respect to do their jobs, she has been suspended on full pay and not sacked? If it was pending investigation I could understand it, but hasn't it been established that she, along with others, is not fit for the job?
3

sam the god,

03/12/2008 10:22:34
#2 stickman
the reason she is still getting paid is because the investigation is still underway. she has been found guilty by the media who as we know tend to over exagerate things to sell there product. If they sacked her and she was proven to be not guilty she would sue the council for vast sums of money more than paying her her wages.
4

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 10:39:43
This is David Cameron taking political advantage of what is a horrible case for partisan reasons. He really must know better, it is customary for people to be suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing. That is employment law and it applies to her as much as to anyone. I am not defending Haringey council, not at all, but Cameron is out of order.
5

Number 6,

GERMANY 03/12/2008 11:10:49
This hag should be suspended on no pay . It can be re-imbursed in the unlikely event that it is cleared.

Has it not already been established that it and it's department have failed on a monumental scale.

The lack of remorse from this harridan is all part of Liebour's "No blame, No responsibility" outlook on life.
6

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 11:24:15
That is a purely emotiove reaction, and the kind that Cameron wants to evoke. In actual fact your deominsation of the woman as a ''hag'' will do nothing to ensure that further Baby P's are not murdered by their parents. We actually need cool heads to consider this, not those for whom the red mist has come down.
7

Soosie,

03/12/2008 14:02:57

#3. Sam, so has it not actually been established that she didn't do her job? Like #2, I thought it had been. Ed Balls seemed to think it was too when he spoke on Tv the other night.

If there does have to be further investigation into her conduct, in order to comply with employment law, it should be done quickly, to ensure that she is not on paid holiday any longer than necessary.
8

danbob,

03/12/2008 18:24:21
Perhaps it's time to move away from this daft modern way of thinking that children are always better off in a family environment. Baby P clearly wasn't and I find it a bit rich that people like George Laird at post 8# who signs himself off as (The campaign for Human rights at Glasgow university) should feel free to comment on the failings of one individual, when the human rights lobby is responsible for pressing for the rights of some of the scummiest lowlife that ever had the misfortune to be born. The truth can be painful Mr Laird but your organisation are a bigger threat than Sharon Shoesmith will ever be.
9

Shug,

03/12/2008 19:05:05
Observer 1 is spot on. This is no different from any other employment case. The emotive tosh that gets spoken on these sites is ridiculous. No doubt she will get the heave, and probably deservedly so. It is correct that the head of a department should go when his or her juniors have failed so badly (cabinet ministers should take heed) but she does not need to be vilified. She did not hurt the child. Many people, friends, neighbours, family stood by and did nothing. The press has no room to comment either, they were the first to attack social services in Orkney and Cleveland. It is a no win situation for the social workers (I am not one by the way)

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.