Baby P Boss Wins Appeal

[Letters]

Oi, geezer, we're getting closer to agreement...Ofsted undertook that review and it was after one the previous year that was glowing in it's praise for Ms Shoesmith...did things really fall apart over a year?

Well no. More likely is they were making mistakes that year too and getting away with them. If I'm running an airline and I don't bother with safety checks on planes and there are no crashes in a year then the airline's excellent safety record is not because of brilliant management, it's luck.
I agree they should have followed due process though when sacking her. But she should have been sacked. IMO.

Agree with the rest.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, final point from me...the second Ofsted report was thorough...but I would suggest that this was partly because they needed to cover their own inadequacies from the first report, they are very often criticised for being pretty inconsistent and easily foolable by streetwise education administrators...part of the problem is that they wield too much influence and this gets in the way of the role they could play in helping childcare facilities improve...

I offer no opinion on whether she should have been sacked, as I do not have enough knowledge of employment law, her contract or the evidence available about the case...

Oh and do you like my name change?...

[The Wengerbabies]

Dumb bitch. Of course she has to take some responsibility.

On another note capital punishment should be handed out to the mother and boyfriend, disgusting humans.

[Xhaka Can’t]

We can never know this of course, but had Baby P lived his tragic life somewhere else in the country, in how many parts of it would the result have been the same?

It is almost impossible to read about social services, in particular those parts of social services responsible for the welfare of children without the article referring to lack of skills, resources, time, funding and a lack of morale amongst those working at the sharp end. I haven't got the facts to hand, but I recall a few months ago reading about Harrigay Social Services and how things have not improved under the new leadership.

Bearing this in mind, when the next tragedy occurs, as it surely will, do the politicians look at what it takes to improve the situation or do they go for what is politically expediant and sack the next scapegoat? I'm not saying Shoesmith is a scapegoat here, but what I am saying is I do not for one minute believe that her sacking has made the life of a single vulnerable child in this country any safer.

[Niall_Quinn]

Oi, mush, all good stuff...but explain to me how Sharon Shoesmith can in Ofsted's eyes go from providing "strong and effective leadership" to the devil incarnate?...She may well have been ultimately responsible for the Baby P's death but political meddling and Ofsted's ass covering meant that she was not afforded a fair hearing. I have heard Sharon Shoesmith on a number of occasions on the radio - she comes across as a determined, caring and committed woman, all attributes you would expect someone to have in her position...surely you can't be arguing that just because there is a emotive issue, normal practice goes out the window?...


Not sure your analogy with Wenger works, he is blessed with a embarassment of resources in an endeavour which can hardly be called life or death...

WE are responsible for every tragedy that comes about because of government. We allow government therefore we allow the fallout that's inevitable from government. A long time ago I realised the best way to deal with authoritarianism (especially of the type practising agendas that conflict with humanitarianism, and the hoards of willing servants it attracts) is extermination, so that no trace remains and no hope of revival exists. Now then, the true knee-jerk reaction to this will be to delve deeply into symptoms of government and most likely in isolated terms, as if lack of funding for public services somehow doesn't lead back to one primary policy that has been with us for centuries - namely subservience to the banking system. The most shocking assumption of all is that government is involved in service in any way, shape or form. Well it is in one way, I suppose, but you won't see it advertised on TV even though it is under your nose. Just to stand back for a moment and look dispels the ludicrous notion of service to the public, but the theatre is instinctively trained into society. Even our language is subverted and inverted. Of course this woman should be sacked (worse if I had my way), not because of Baby P, Baby P is another symptom of government, what drives it, and the society that is inevitably created as a result. No, she should be sanctioned in the most comprehensive manner (along with all the other brown shirts) because she willingly gives herself to government. That is a crime of proportions that can scarcely be imagined, and yet similar criminality is rampant across the land and even glorified. I don't hold ignorance as any valid defence either, because the facts are there if one only cares to look. When we can snap out of government then we can continue evolving and that's what will save the Baby P's. But before that happens then the odd sacking here or resignation there is oil to lubricate the machine. Nothing more. Millions more children will die this year and our public servants will tell us nothing can be done, even as they actively exacerbate the carnage and call it public service.

I agree with you, holding this one woman up as a method to forgive sins so vile they can no longer be comprehended is an apology that could never be accepted by a decent human being. If she's not to be the first of many then let her go free, what's the point of scratching one pimple on a foul and stinking arse. Scratch them all or live with the stench. Be the stench.

[V-Pig]

I'm expecting milfette's baby to end up the same way, except he won't be on the front page cos he looks like his fucktard dad.

Wish I were joking.