So Sharon Shoesmith wasn’t given due process and can now appeal against her unlawful sacking. ‘Strangely’ she nows looks a lot less like Cruella de V ille after all the stress of being made the fall guy.
Peter Connelly was killed by cruel idiots. We even have a video of a senior social worker being suckered by the simple psychopath ploys of the mother. As far as we know, the important questions and learning may or may not have taken place. Our press is not concerned to make copy.
Balls ballsed-up by not following disciplinary procedures, a common error. It seems amazing it’s taken the Appeal Court to make this plain, as the law is not complex. The appeal will be appealed, making me wonder how the business of sacking can be so complicated.
At the moment, we can be sure Sharon has been much better protected in law than Peter Connelly or any poor victim of crime and anti-social monsters. Quite what the state of our law is when she can bring its weight to bear for her case, yet Mrs. Pilkington was driven to take her own and her daughter’s lives, really beggars belief – let alone shaggers and superinjunctions. I saw a Supreme Court judge on TV the other night, claiming a shortage of resources in his childhood had turned him to the law – whilst at Rugby School. More or less says it all.
I suspect the issue we should focus on is not whether Sharon was any better of worse than others doing this kind of job. I suspect they are all likely not to be much use because our promotion systems and what we make such jobs into. Not much good is likely to survive. The focus should be on bringing in something like judicial review on behalf of victims, at the point at which it would matter. In fact, we rely on people just like Shoesmith to do this, and they routinely fail victims’ interests and support the fatal nexus of professions and politics that feed them.
My guess is she will be paid off in order to keep the ongoing mess under the carpet. One suspects any poor sod in the middle of such terrors is a voiceless as ever.