Shoesmith, Balls and Appeals


Ed Balls, Member of Parliament of the United K...

Image via Wikipedia

I was trying to steer away from discussion of the Shoesmith’s appeal against her dismissal by Haringey Council (via Ed Balls, the responsible Cabinet minister at the time) and her victory in the Court of Appeal – but having followed the case from the outset, I can’t quite resist coming back to it.

There are a few issues that have caught my attention in the press and blogs that I  have read over the past few days.

Firstly there is a confusion between the outcome (namely Shoesmith losing her job) and the process (being sacked via the Minister in a press conference on the basis – according to him, at least – of an OFSTED report, the findings of which she was not able to respond to).

I am biased although I have no time for Shoesmith. Like almost every Director of Services (Adults and Children) she is happy to take the pay without having an idea of how the services are, or aren’t being run ‘under her watch’. She doesn’t come across as a particularly sympathetic character and I think her lack of knowledge of social work  – as she comes from an education background – has come back to bite hard.

But, and this is the big but – that doesn’t mean she is suddenly an exception to employment law – and of course, that’s what the Court of Appeal found.

Secondly, Balls hung Shoesmith, and by extension the social work profession and professionals out to dry. It’s all very well saying responsibility should lie at the top  but if that is the case, why not the Children’s Minister himself? You see, the problem with the uproar following the tragic death of Peter Connolly, which led to the highly charged press conferences and shamefully manipulative exchanges in the Houses of Commons is that it was a manufactured outrage. Yes, of course it is beyond awful when a child dies following abuse and it is a failing when the systems that should protect that child break down but Peter Conn0lly isn’t the only child, unfortunately, to die under those circumstances and in the face of Ed Balls’ posturing and much as we would like it to be different, nor will he be the last one.

There was the awful tales of Alex Sutherland, Khyra Ishtaq, Baby B – and many others – so why was Peter Connolly thrust into the public consciousness such that the memories of a boy whose life was cut short are remembered by the details of his death and the photos released to the newspapers?

Well, that would probably be an interesting research project all in itself about media and the human psyche – but Balls admits that he succumbed to pressure regarding Shoesmith and the pressure was put on by the tabloid press. He even added insult to injury by throwing Deirdre Sanders, the agony aunt of the Sun newspaper onto the Social Work Taskforce which was to look at ways of improving social work practice. If anything demonstrates how he threw the profession to the baying wolves, it is that.

As for Shoesmith, however she may or may not have done her job, hers was not the hand that beat Connolly. She deserved better from her employers regarding advice although who knows if they gave her that media management advice and whether she chose not to take it or whether she was just thrown to the wolves by her employers.

The OFSTED report by which Balls condemned Shoesmith is faulty in the extreme and was altered. I wonder who might have put pressure on OFSTED to change this.

There is a lot of poor practice and poor knowledge of processes knocking around in this case. It wasn’t all to be laid at the feet of Shoesmith. It looks like the ex-minister had more to gain through his pandering to the press than anyone else and the shame is that it is on the back of a tragedy.

Shoesmith isn’t a social worker and never has been (although the Evening Standard headline seems to state it) but it’s easy for the press to make the leap because they have no idea about the actual facts nor do they check them. They want a hate figure. I am uncomfortable defending Shoesmith to a point because I am not sure exactly where the blame lies but the blame for processes should lie between the police service, the health service and children’s services.  Another Serious Case Review and more about the failings in communication between agencies. The profession really needs far more radical proposals than those set out in the Munro Report but it’s a start.

What Shoesmith was entitled to was the same process of natural justice that everyone else is- I don’t say she shouldn’t have been dismissed, that’s another argument entirely and to be honest, I think she should have been – but Balls was looking to the headlines rather than the law book when he acted to dismiss her.

For that, he should apologise rather than taking refuge in the baying crowds of populism – oh, but he’s a politician. However much I may hate the current government, and however much Osborne makes my skin crawl, I will never forget the shameless pandering to the tabloid press that Balls engaged in on the back of the death of a child.

9 thoughts on “Shoesmith, Balls and Appeals

  1. As always a sane , sensible & humane reading of the way SW has in the public mind been seen as a ” failed & scandalous profession”… not my words but those of Butler & Drakeford” in their new book ‘ SW on trial’ -Colwell Inquiry & the state of Welfare’… your posts show just how difficult the work is & how important it is that it is done well…Regards Mike ( former Probation Officer -registered SW-)

  2. excellent posting, however I dont think the daily hell makes the sophistocated distinction, that process may be wrong but Shoesmith should carry the can. If she gets compensation the hounds will be out baying for her blood, but arent they forgetting something ? she didnt kill baby Peter, also what about charges of corporate manslaughter as happened with the directors of Jarvis or would this be unthinkable?

  3. Good post.

    I often wonder what newspaper editors think a land ruled by tabloid would look like? Tribunals of celebrity columnists dispensing summary justice and condign punishment on Sky TV with red button interaction and phone-in votes, X factor style? Is this a serious intention or do they just enjoy baiting politicians in the knowledge that although they can isolate and victimise some individuals, professions and groups, serious challenges to power would not be tolerated? All the same, putting an ‘all the answers’ columnist / agony aunt onto a task group about social work professionalism just about seemed to sum up the government’s grasp on the situation.

    Two other issues.

    Balls was part of the government that amalgamated childrens service and education department responsibilities (against the advice of more grounded commentators) and which probably did so because of a wish to respond to the perception that the social work is a failed profession and social work qualified staff can’t be responsible for governance of their own departments and structures. This was the decision that placed educationalists like Shoesmith in charge over responsibilities that they has no preparation and little enthusiasm for and which, though it accorded with the tabloid view of the world that strict bossy teachers should be keeping an eye on the dippy fey social workers, in fact did little for child safety.

    If Balls were still in office, I’m sure he’d have to resign after this judgement. The judgement invited Haringey to seek a personal contribution towards any settlement from Ed Balls. Extraordinary!

    The institutional presence of social work in policy making is slight but at least there are judges who can restrain or at least comment on the more bizarre actions of tabloid-cowed politicians. Unfortunately, the restless press and the politicians keen to appease them have now turned their attention towards the independent powers of the judiciary in the Twitter / super injunction cases. How I wish we had a written constitution rather than a constitutional court on the comment page of the Daily Mail.

    For a more coherent analysis about the press in this country than maunderings, read Nick Davies – Flat Earth News.

    • Thanks Guilsfield – I agree about the way that there is such pandering to the Daily Mail/tabloid press. It’s depressing. I think the point about the split of social services and the increased so-called ‘specialisation’ has done the profession a disservice.

  4. A well considered article. I still maintain that the 2007 ofsted report gave Haringey a clean bill of health and anyone would have been reassured by this.
    She is not Harold Shipman and she got paid slightly more than a GP for being responsible for all vulnerable children within a Local Authority. Fot goodness sake with Ian Tomlinson it was the Police that actually killed him and I don’t see any baying for the blood of the commissioner of the met. It’s a bloody difficult job that directors of children’s services do and why anyone would do it is beyond me.

Comments are closed.