Sharon Shoesmith

[tony1851]

A child at risk received 60 visits from the authorities but died after sufferring horrendous abuse.

Meanwhile the leader of the team, under who's watch the child died, receives a six-figure compensation sum for unfair dismissal.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/boss-sacked-over-baby-p-death-awarded-almost-680000-94260

 

[EFLImpudence]

Apart from the amount, this is what troubles me -

"Haringey Council has said that the terms of the settlement are confidential and they will not be commenting. "

Why? A council and a public servant, yet secret.



Oh, I see Michael Gove agrees with me so it'll soon be sorted.

 

[Brigadier]

She was on best part of £150k p.a.

What exactly did she think that was for? A generous gift?

While she was not "on the front line", she was paid to ensure that " the front line" did their job (or called attention that they were unable to do their job).

From the outside, she was paid handsomely, with no accountability. Where do I sign up for a bit of that?

Sorry - that's not me. How do these people sleep at night?

 

[JBR]

The more I read about such things, the more I realise that this country is becoming as corrupt as any in Bongo Bongo Land.

 

[Doug99]

Blame Ed Balls as he wanted her out at any cost to deflect the political headlines from the flailing government of the time.

He didn't follow due process so once again us tax payers pick up the tab.

 

[JBR]

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised. Our present-day politicians are only doing what the mediaeval nobility once did: screwing the plebs to fund their privileged lifestyle.

 

[Dextraneous]

I've always argued that Shoesmith should be prosecuted as an accessory to manslaughter.

 

[gasbanni]

Unbelievable and who exactly decides on the amount of the payout and how can it be argued she was wrongly sacked ?

surely gross incompetence is a justified reason for sacking someone ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

BBC News -

"The compensation package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in the 2011 ruling.

He gave the opinion Ms Shoesmith was entitled to a minimum of three months' salary plus pensions contributions, which would have amounted to about £33,000."

So the council settled on £680,000.


It's not that the sacking is not justified; it just wasn't done properly.

Lawyers.

 

[mark vincent]

BBC News -

"The compensation package is more than the minimum suggested by senior judge Lord Neuberger in the 2011 ruling.

He gave the opinion Ms Shoesmith was entitled to a minimum of three months' salary plus pensions contributions, which would have amounted to about £33,000."

So the council settled on £680,000.


It's not that the sacking is not justified; it just wasn't done properly.

Lawyers.

Why should the council care, it isn't their money they are throwing away it is the mugs who pay council tax who are paying .