Sharon Shoesmith: was she a scapegoat?

[bil]

So was she unfairly dismissed? was she negligent in her role and directly responsible for the failure of the department to prevent baby Peters death? She was partly responsible for the failure of the Haringey Social services. Ed Balls was ultimately responsible. It was the government- who has failed these beautiful children and have made the social services department the scapegoat.

If you don't have the resources to do your job well; how can you be blamed for the inevitable failure?

I work for the NHS and have worked closely with social services for many years. They are so stretched and fight constantly to try to do a difficult job under suboptimal conditions. There aren't enough social workers, paperwork is substantial with increasing bureaucracy, lack of support, an overwhelming number of cases and limited funds. (These problems are not confined to social work, all over the NHS are thousands of employees are struggling with low morale, stress, lack of resources, trying to do their job to the best of their ability and under difficult conditions-but that is another debate)

That's not to say that she wasn't accountable for the failings of the department and I think that she should have resigned from her post.

I don't believe that she would ever have wanted a child to have been harmed under her authority. She must have been suffering everyday since this has happened. What an incredible burden for one person to bear.

[Santerme]

The answer is yes

This unrepentent incompetent person failed and failed again

Is this not the same person who joyously reported achieving all the national targets for her dept?

So she is either a liar or incompetent or probably both

What a great human being to have in charge of 'lierally' peoples lives and welfare

[SteveT]

Baby Peter was his parents/guardians responsibility, and they are the culprits.

The rest is just politics in my opinion.