Baby P chief accuses Balls of 'breathtaking recklessness'
Shoesmith attacks minister for turning 'local tragedy' into a 'national catastrophe'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
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
enlarge
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.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
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.
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"?
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.
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
http://sites.google.com/site/workwebg/b
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
"...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...'
Wake up and smell the coffee.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://sites.google.com/site/workwebg/b
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?
The female future, currently submerged beneath the planet-busting ambition of legions of gluttonous planet-busting Harpersons, will resurface, with help from your kind.
It's been all over the internet for months. Devastating case, cute little boy.
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
Several examples in the present government.
The give-away is the bulging eyeballs, the inability to shut up and listen to other people.
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.
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?
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.
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