UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Baby P chief accuses Balls of 'breathtaking recklessness'

Shoesmith attacks minister for turning 'local tragedy' into a 'national catastrophe'

By Chris Green

Sharon Shoesmith said the Children's Secretary Ed Balls had made life 'more of an uphill struggle' for social workers by contributing to a blame culture

PA

Sharon Shoesmith said the Children's Secretary Ed Balls had made life 'more of an uphill struggle' for social workers by contributing to a blame culture

A fresh row over the death of Baby P erupted last night when the Children's Secretary, Ed Balls, issued a stinging response to accusations made by Sharon Shoesmith, the former director of children's services at Haringey Council, whom he sacked after an inquiry into the toddler's death last year.

In her first public comments since being dismissed live on television in December, Ms Shoesmith accused him of handling the Baby P affair with "breathtaking recklessness".

Last night Mr Balls responded angrily to the allegations, saying he would make "exactly the same decisions" if he was faced with another situation similar to the Baby P case.

In the same interview, Ms Shoesmith also claimed that the inquiry ordered by Mr Balls into child protection in the north London borough had been an attempt to "discredit" her and had lacked objectivity.

She added that his actions, exacerbated by a sensationalist media, had made life "more of an uphill struggle" for social workers by contributing to a blame culture, and had turned something she viewed as a "local tragedy" into a "national catastrophe".

She said: "I was shocked at how fast it became a party political issue. It has just been deeply reckless, breathtakingly reckless, and I don't think people understood quite what the impact could be."

In a statement, Mr Balls said: "I make no apology for the actions I took in Haringey last December, which I judged absolutely necessary to make sure children in that borough are properly protected. Social workers do an incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous job every day to keep children safe. They are unsung heroes of our country. But when things go wrong it is vital that we act.

"That is why I sent in the independent children's services, police and health inspectors to investigate the situation in Haringey. Their report was devastating and revealed serious failures in the management of Haringey children's services. I believe that every community, every parent and every social worker would expect me to put the safety of children first. That is what I did – and faced with the same situation again I would have no hesitation in taking exactly the same decisions."

Baby P was 17 months old when he died in August 2007, after suffering more than 50 injuries at the hands of his abusive mother, her boyfriend and their lodger. The trio are due to be sentenced next month.

Haringey social workers and medical officials were severely criticised for failing to notice the abuse despite the toddler having 60 contacts with authorities over a period of eight months. The case triggered public outrage, with 1.3 million people signing a national newspaper petition to get all of those involved in the affair removed from their positions.

Ms Shoesmith admitted she mishandled public reaction and said that Haringey Council had been out of touch with most people's opinions. "I think when we were planning the press response we had misjudged the mood of the nation," she said.

She also said she regretted the "disastrous" press conference in the immediate aftermath of the court case, in which she said: "The very sad fact is that we can't stop people who are determined to kill children."

It recently emerged that Ms Shoesmith was appealing against her dismissal at the hands of Mr Balls.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Balls is a liar
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 06:15 am (UTC)
When he claims that he "takes action" when "faced with" local government negligence.
I have before me, details (which I cannot make public for obvious reasons) a case referred to his office and to him personally, of not only negligence, but persistent and wilful negligence including (proven to a SEN Tribunal which case Camden consequently lost) deliberate falsification of educational and medical records to cover up wrongdoing by Camden "children's services".

But Balls has very definitely not "taken action", not even supported a call for internal investigation for example, and the perpetrators are still in office, inflicting without any restriction or supervision, their personal and professional values on children.
Re: Balls is a liar
[info]amelia1 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
If the matter you refer to pertains to an SEN tribunal, then it's not about child abuse, it's about provision. Not qutite the same thing as the issues involved in this case.
Re: Balls is a liar
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:36 pm (UTC)
Actually dearie, it's "about" the fact that Balls is a liar.
In any case its also arguable that "provision" as you call it, when existing only (and simultaneously) as both concocted false records of "provision" and concocted false record of no need for that allegedly delivered "provision", whether of "child protection" or of 'free of charge' medical/educational services, is equally unlawful and equally deserving of freedom from being protected by a public office holder of the rank of Balls.
Taking the issue a little further, please tell us when denial of "provision" of needed and entitled medical and educational services, justified by routine resort to falsification of educational and medical records, cease being "child abuse"?
Re: Balls is a liar
[info]amelia1 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 07:13 pm (UTC)
The issue here is whether the head of Haringey social services should be held responsible for failures of her department that led to the death of a child. Has it not occured to you that this is the wrong forum for your personal gripes about provision DEARIE.
Balls is angry? What about Margaret Hodge?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC)
How fascinating to hear the Ed Balls is angry, what about the anger generated by Margaret Hodge? She was the first 'Minister for Children' appointed by Blair in 2001 despite being involved in a scandal at Islington Council whiie she was leader that involved child abuse at homes run by the council.

Balls is yet another government minister manifestly incapable of adequately discharging his duties with regard to child welfare. He joins a long parade of incompetents who cannot manage to get the basic things right, as is made clear by the long list of inquiries, criminal prosecutions and reports aftre the abuse and death of the children that they are supposed to protect.
Re: Balls is angry? What about Margaret Hodge?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
The reason that creatures like Hodge (and Harperson as champion of the part-time parent) get into and survive in government (and in highly pertinent jobs) is hinted at by the fact that while in the accepted heirarchy of treaty terminology, a State's undertaking to "ensure" a right denotes the highest possible obligation - it requires more than mere non interference with a designated right and requires the State party to the treaty to execute positive legislative administrative/legal measures as necessary, to make sure the specified right can be effectively exercised; and the word "ensure" is used 32 times in the substantive body of the on the ratified (that means legally binding) children's rights convention (UNCRC) and is not mitigated or derogated in any way. The Article 43 committee, set up by the UNCRC as the authoritive reference source, has recorded and not revised / withdrawn, heavy criticism of Britain for not implementing many aspects of the Treaty.

In report "Concluding Observations of the Committee on the of the Child Concerning UK, the Committee found that Britain is in violation of the Treaty. "In this the Committee observes in particular that the principal for the best interest of the child appears not to be in legislation in such areas as *health, education, and social security*, which have a bearing on the respect the rights of the child."

That finding has been corroborated by UNICEF, and all four of Britain's children commissioners , among others - and one of the outcomes is children hostile creatures in highly pertinent government offices
Re: Balls is angry? What about Margaret Hodge?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
As usual, it's contrived that public wrath is misdirected.

http://sites.google.com/site/workwebg/blairite-misogyny

OK, holders of public office do 'use charts' and so on, but why? Because they have been conditioned to by higher rankers. They falsify records, but why? Because they have been conditioned to by higher rankers - who also guarantee them impunity and their victims justice, in a bananarepublicanised British civil justice system
Re: Balls is angry? What about Margaret Hodge?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
shucks! never did learn to be a typist.

"...who also guarantee them impunity and their victims justice, in a bananarepublicanised British civil justice system"

should of course have read : '...and their victims injustice...'
[info]brinksman wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
The arrogance of this woman Shoesmith knows no bounds. She should be hanging her head in shame and never show her face again. Horrible person.
shoesmith outburst
[info]mind_ful wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 08:24 am (UTC)
Is this the woman who reigned over the chaos that caused the baby's death? When will people learn to take responsibility - this failure to understand what responsibility means seems to be a golabal diesease not confined to the finantial and banking industries!
What arrogance!!!
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
I pains me to say this but is this woman is showing why arrogance led to the Baby P debacle. Does she honestly believe that she is right and the rest of the nation is wrong? I have to say that having an Honors Degree in Social Care does not make you an expert in management - you clearly got that wrong too.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Witch hunt
[info]smithsfan82 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 09:40 am (UTC)
Everything about the entire case smacks of a witch hunt. People were lambasting the people believed to be "responsible" before an inquiry had been launched and before any evidence was given. The Sun led the way and there has been a rape of the logical mind. I have read the transcripts of interviews given by this woman and the subsequent "reports" and "quotes" given in the tabloids and they deliberately misinterpret her views on the case.

There has been a failing but if we sacked everyone for making these mistakes then nothing is learnt from them. Why were all the good points relating to the Child Protection Unit scrubbed from the record? Why did the government only act when public perception, led by the moronic Murdoch News Corp, reached fever pitch? It is a disgrace that this "democratic" country can be led by an American news mogul it really is. It is maybe not relevant but there was James Bond film which centred on the manipulation of the news to control people; somewhat prophetic considering the news we have today tabloid wise but then has it ever been different?
some people are so blinkered they are blind
[info]forwardplanning wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC)
"Shoesmith attacks minister for turning 'local tragedy' into a 'national catastrophe'"

This is the same woman whose department, she is head of, through a series of catastrophic failures was instrumental in the dangers Baby P faced?

The same department whose taxpayers money fund to protect the vulnerable, like Baby P?

The same woman who to the National Press stated refused to accept responsibility for the failures of her department?

The same woman who to the National Press stated refused to apologise for those failures?

Whilst I loathe and detest this government for all their failures, and 'So What' Balls, is literally that, she should have accepted her own failures and this arrogant stance merely endorses that she continues to fail to understand.

The sooner we are rid of all such myopic people out of the public arena the better.
In fact
[info]larkspur_14 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)
she also blames the witch hunt launched by the media, but I notice the media are not so keen to publicise this.
Rogue Psychopaths
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
"The very sad fact is that we can't stop people who are determined to kill children."

Ms Shoesmith is correct. Lets get reality the right way around, psychopaths killed that child, not the social workers. The people who killed Baby P are in jail and most probably relieved that all the attention in the case has somehow been put on social workers and diverted away from them.

The sensationalist headlines revolving around this case have made many people wary of becoming social workers looking after the care of vulnerable children because if any mistakes are made they are hung, drawn and quartered in the press.

Would you like a job like that?

The government response was to send in the inquisition, set up a show trial and immediately dispatch those who where deemed guilty of error, this is not natural justice.

As a consequence there is already a noticeable affect in social worker recruitment for the care of children. Less social workers means less children will be monitored and even more vulnerable to the rogue psychopaths out there who will sadly never go away.
Re: Rogue Psychopaths
[info]andygb wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC)
Well said Humble Sparrow, we live in a culture of "blame", where everyone wants to be involved in the trial by media, in order to see someone sacked, thus quenching their thirst for revenge.
What of the evil people who are responsible for these atrocities, what are the statistics of this happening again? If we constantly try to undermine the efforts of overstretched social workers and their management, then who will bother to work there in the future?
As a nation, we are appalled if children are taken into care, we feel sorry for fathers for justice, sorry for the mothers wrongly accused of causing a baby's death (cot death syndrome), and we feel sorry for the McCanns, who in my opinion were guilty of gross negligence.
This sort of thing is going to happen in a population of 60 million, where you don't have to pass a test or hold a licence to have children. Constant knee jerk reactions by a government who cut back on Social Services, thus minimising resources, are cheap at best and quite frankly an insult.
DEAD CHILDREN
[info]indypen wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
Shoesmith came before the media with a graph that showed she was doing a good job. She failed to get it, and still does. Its not about targets and boxes ticked, its about dead children. Balls Shoesmith Hodge Blair Brown- they all are to blame, not in this blame culture but in the tick box culture.
Ego-protective state of 'Denial'
[info]doc_sokolov wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC)
This lady's dissembling appears as a classic example of the well documented psychiatric condition of 'Denial'. Quite patently, and very disturbing, this lady appears to have no vestige of a sense of responsibility Sure, likely there are others, some more, some less culpable. However, is exculpates no one.Attempting to diffuse responsibility by pointing the finger at others is simply wantonly irrational
Breathtaking Refusal to be Held Accountable, ... While Still Blaming Everyone Else.
[info]proximaking wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 11:43 am (UTC)
Breathtaking recklessness? I have just heard her asking whether a chief of police in an area would be sacked if someone was stabbed in the area under their control. The very fact she can ask such a question shows she doesn't understand the difference between someone at random taking a knife from a kitchen and stabbing someone with it and someone who works for her failing to prevent a child being murdered.

That social worker worked under a management system that Shoesmith was being paid to provide and administer.

What was the old bit of dialogue from "As good as it gets"? "How do you write women so well?" ..... "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability."

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Shoesmith
[info]piddle1 wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
The biggest problem for Sharon Shoesmith is that she takes a bad photograph. She has a look of arrogance and aloofeness about her which makes people more antagonistic towards her. This then seems to carry on into her verbal presentations. If she was some poor little bleeding heart apologist she would have had a much easier ride and would probably still be in her job.
agreed
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:18 pm (UTC)
Be deeply suspicious when a filthy pol rides the lynch mob bandwagon. I am reminded of the misdirected attack on horrid single-handed parents spearheaded by Harperson

http://sites.google.com/site/workwebg/blairite-misogyny
Re: agreed
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
I've just read that report, cronyblatcher, very interesting...

I was just thinking the other day how misogynistic a lot of policies are, and the attitudes they condone.

For example, women are near enough 50% of the workforce in today's society, however, why are paternity leave and maternity leave not equal? So employers have an excuse to pay women less...

When a child in a single parent family comits a crime, who is blamed? The mother. Because she raised the child. Or, less commonly, the mother because she abandoned the child... Errr two were there at the conception, two can take responsibility for the upbringing.

I don't mean to come across as misandrist at all, far from it. Most men I know in real life are completely respectful of women, don't talk down to them, treat them as equals whether it be on a night out or in the boardroom, but why does policy not reflect this? Make custody equal for mother and father, make paternity pay equal to maternity pay (so ma and pa can share) and remove opacity in pay for employees, they are my suggestions that would have a genuine effect.

The problem is, house of commons is full of men, who clearly know that by campaigning for rights for fathers to have legally equal custody and paternity, they would shoot themselves in the foot in a monetary way. Shallow? Who said that?
Re: agreed
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 01:50 pm (UTC)
Thank you for finding the time to read the item. As a male but also father of high stepping daughters and consequent kindred spirit of Smith, I have indirect experience of the prob.

The female future, currently submerged beneath the planet-busting ambition of legions of gluttonous planet-busting Harpersons, will resurface, with help from your kind.
The latest news from Planet Shoesmith
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
This woman has form. Victoria Climbie was also tortured and murdered in Haringey. Clearly there are systemic management problems when TWO children suffer from this, and when dozens on on-site visits and interviews completely fail to report any problems. And Shoesmith was reponsible for this. Her lack of contrition and her determination to get her hands on her severance pay and pension money, show that she is detached from reality and will need a long time to realise what happened. No doubt she is suffering from some form of psychological "removal" that isolates and protects her from realising the truth.
TRIAL BY MEDIA
[info]indypen wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
A tabloid press backlash- as governments are wont to sweep everything under the carpet or produce some meaningless inquiry peopled by placemen. Victoria Climbie, inquiry, report, baby P inquiry...... the cycle goes on, the deaths go on. So a govt that tortures fellow humans, that went on a crusading war, that employs Margaret Hodge--- is surely the problem. To show the real visceral anger that is felt by the plebs, well Shoesmith should be torn apart by the wolves. She is the face- that arrogant hectoring pontificating lying vile uncaring self serving evil face that is new labour. Tial by media and why not. Why not sentence by media.
Re: TRIAL BY MEDIA
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC)
Hmmm! Maybe you're right. OK , sexy but dull-witted (as public office holders tend to be).
CAN WE NOT NAME HIM
[info]indypen wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
Even now if I see baby P I get upset. Can we not put a name to his face. Please give him a name, thats all we have in life and death is our name.
Re: CAN WE NOT NAME HIM
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC)
Peter.

It's been all over the internet for months. Devastating case, cute little boy.
Breathtaking arrogance
[info]wiltonj wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:41 pm (UTC)
I in turn must accuse Sharon Shoesmith of breathtaking arrogance. This woman presided, at a fat salary, over a department which had a duty to protect children and yet which allowed a child under its supervision to be beaten to death over a prolonged period. She should crawl away into a corner and die of shame. But she chooses instead to perpetuate her vile offense by trying to blame others. She has no sense of duty, or of responsibility, and so she fails to understand the colossal contempt in which she is rightly held by normal humans. This is not in any way to suggest support for the sententious creep Balls.
Re: Breathtaking arrogance
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
She also had a duty not to send her (non accountable) Gestapo agents on a rampage of pseudo child-'protection'.

I see her not only as a sexy cool independent-minded bird, but as a (defeated) bastion against rampant Meadow/Southall syndrome as a characteristic of dysfunctional local government in the formerly self-respecting banana republic of Britain
'Hyperactivity linked to genes and thyroid'
[info]tomhmacf wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC)
It's time ministers had a medical exam before being allowed to takle on the jobs.

Several examples in the present government.

The give-away is the bulging eyeballs, the inability to shut up and listen to other people.
one word - " A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y "
[info]dogpooonshu wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 02:32 pm (UTC)
Pure and simple really, the buck well and truly doth stoppeth with the woman who was happy to hold the post as Director - she must be held accountable and stop bemoaning the alledged witch-hunt or trial-by-media; a child is dead and her department failed to deliver. My advice to her would be to gracefully fall upon her sword...
SHOESMITH
[info]rfarley wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC)
The arrogance of this odious beggars belief. Not only is completely unrepentant for the part she played in this baby's death, she is suggesting she was unfairly dismissed. I would not just have dismissed her - I would have charged her with criminal negligence. I find her repugnant.
Re: SHOESMITH
[info]zillys wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 05:18 pm (UTC)
I agree. This is not a case of trial by media or witch-hunt. Part of management means accepting that you will be held accountable if your company/department etc fails to deliver for whatever reason. As Director of Children of Services for Haringay of course the buck passed to her. She needs to accept this and stop trying to portray herself as some sort of martyr.

Yes, you cannot inevitably stop killers from killing someone, but that is not the issue surrounding Baby P, it is the fact the department were negligent in spotting visible signs of abuse.
Really
[info]kanchenjunga wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 05:12 pm (UTC)
It is unbelievable that the head of this agency in Wood Green can even begin to think in these terms. She has the gall to bring this to the surface when she should have escaped the country and never have come back, what an insult to the people who have suffered under her ignorant, incompetent regime.
You madam should be ashamed of yourself, and given a gun do the honorable thing.
Ed balls is not the brightest tool in the, box but at long last he did the correct thing. I hope if this comes to court, common sense will prevail, and the judge kicks it out before it even begins.
There are just too many events happening where one can only shake the head and roll the eyes. Please let this country wake up to what is going down. Why is Ross still seen on the box?
Shoesmith
[info]rbinredbreast wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 06:43 pm (UTC)
I feel that lets take a look at Society.its structure or lack of and then what happens when a person,male/female puts their needs before that of their children.A new partner who has no time for the children. a drug addict who hurts the children, an alcoholic who neglects the children.
The scenarios are numerous but bring back the District nurse ,Midwife Health, Visitor who were so dedicated and had a great take on these situations.
What is the answer,CCTV in every house to watch how they interact with their children.Society has melted and Shoesmith is but an easy Scapegoat.It will happen and has happened again.
Wake uop worl and quench the reaction at source -Primary school would be a good start and re-think the support team.
Re: Shoesmith
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Saturday, 7 February 2009 at 10:27 pm (UTC)
You raise a few important issues ranging from top-down encouragement of part-time parenting important issues from, through the run down of the valuable public services you mention, to the surveillance society - to which I would add the dreadful role modelling presented by violent unprincipled snouts at the top of the tree, and the polished skill they display in deflecting societal wrath away from themselves towards soft targets that can't bite back as scapegoats.

To those who call for singling out of this silly woman, I say kindly redirect your anger to where it will do some good. Demand for example compliance with ratified UNCRC, which would as designed to, extend a protective umbrella over all children, currently treated as second class citizens having no right at all to protection from wrongdoing by public offices and the all too frequently negligent and often wilfully negligent (with impunity) creatures who populate them. Do not let yourselves be misled like donkeys by filthy pols and the meeja

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date