Reply to: Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect

[EternalOptimist]

that bloke that had his 'ead cut off didnt deserve it. but on the other hand, he went to a risky area, for pay.
but 3 years old ?? thats an inoccent

[Churchill]

They should do an Educating Rita type program with you, capture your inner most thoughts then try and force you through some degree and see how you cope.

Actually maybe a course on car mechanics first, then see how we get on.

Been on the Buckie again? Vote yes and **** off.

[minestrone]

Who's got the keys for the outrage bus?

Get her fired up lads, this is going to run and run!

Some people are bastards, they abuse their kids, partners, their dogs.

It has ever been thus.

Shouldn't happen but it does. Live with it.

They should do an Educating Rita type program with you, capture your inner most thoughts then try and force you through some degree and see how you cope.

Actually maybe a course on car mechanics first, then see how we get on.

[Churchill]

Who's got the keys for the outrage bus?

Get her fired up lads, this is going to run and run!

Some people are bastards, they abuse their kids, partners, their dogs.

It has ever been thus.

Shouldn't happen but it does. Live with it.

[original PM]

It was done on a technicality of the law.

However as she was a high profile case I think the lawyers representing her where the ones who won.

In most case it is the lawyers that win and justice for the masses seems to take a rather distant second

[SueEllen]

they could of course restricted the compensation.
.

It was done on a technicality of the law.

However as she was a high profile case I think the lawyers representing her where the ones who won.

[vetran]

Right. The unfair dismissal tribunal was not there to decide on whether she was or wasn't responsible for failings in her department that led to the death of Baby P, but to rule on whether she was unfairly dismissed. It ruled she was, and that seems to have been the correct ruling.

It shouldn't shock anybody that it was a complete frakk-up given that Ed Balls was involved. Ministers can't just arbitrarily fire civil servants because the press is kicking up a stink.

they could of course restricted the compensation.

but it was a balls up.

[Spartacus]

IIRC (can't be arsed to go and re-read) the issue was that they hadn't gone through the correct process to dismiss her.

Right. The unfair dismissal tribunal was not there to decide on whether she was or wasn't responsible for failings in her department that led to the death of Baby P, but to rule on whether she was unfairly dismissed. It ruled she was, and that seems to have been the correct ruling.

It shouldn't shock anybody that it was a complete frakk-up given that Ed Balls was involved. Ministers can't just arbitrarily fire civil servants because the press is kicking up a stink.

[DiscoStu]

But was she? the staff under her control did nothing for a long period of time to prevent the death of Baby P when they could have done.

If she is responsible for those staff and is paid a fair wedge for that responsibility then when the tulip hits the fan she is the one held responsible.

And if it not her fault then whose is it - or is it just that the system does not work?

IIRC (can't be arsed to go and re-read) the issue was that they hadn't gone through the correct process to dismiss her.

[original PM]

And it turns out she was unfairly dismissed and was awarded £680,000 in compensation. The then Education Secretary Ed Balls, under pressure from the press to "do something", arbitrarily dismissed her, even though he had no authority to do so and without going through the correct procedures.

But was she? the staff under her control did nothing for a long period of time to prevent the death of Baby P when they could have done.

If she is responsible for those staff and is paid a fair wedge for that responsibility then when the tulip hits the fan she is the one held responsible.

And if it not her fault then whose is it - or is it just that the system does not work?

[Spartacus]

She did.

And it turns out she was unfairly dismissed and was awarded £680,000 in compensation. The then Education Secretary Ed Balls, under pressure from the press to "do something", arbitrarily dismissed her, even though he had no authority to do so and without going through the correct procedures.

[mudskipper]

She then tried to sue for infair dismissal - not sure if she got anywhere.

She did.

[original PM]

It seems that more and more the various social services and support agencies are unable to do much due to red tape etc etc

However I think it is as much to do woth people jumping on that gravy train and not wanting to change anything as it is easy money.

Not sure if you remeber the Baby P case but the director of whatever social services should have done something was sacked over it.

She then tried to sue for infair dismissal - not sure if she got anywhere.

So sadly the people that possibly could change the system to stop this happening don't.

[CloudWalker]

The family had been known for 16 years to doctors, teachers, police and social workers.
During that time there were numerous visits to GPs and complaints from teachers and health workers to social services about the state of the children.

Should had sterilised them years ago

[MarillionFan]

Fook me that's heartbreaking. What's wrong with people? And the services that are supposed to prevent such despair?


BBC News - Girl, 3, 'unable to walk' from neglect, report finds

So, has Suity lost his kids then?