Why Should People At The Top Take The Blame?

As I'm sure you're aware, this Police Commissioner bloke for South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright, is taking some stick because he was in charge of Rotherham Children's Services when all this alleged abuse was happening.

But is he really to blame? People at the very top of large organisations rarely have day-to-day contact with the plebs on the ground. How was he supposed to spot all this abuse? Surely it's the social workers on the ground who are to blame?

This current situation is similar to that of Sharon Shoesmith who was top dog at Haringey Children's Service when Baby P was killed by his parents. She was sacked and ultimately blamed for what happened when she never even knew who Baby P was until he died. But plenty of people within the council knew all about Baby P and his family but did nothing. Why didn't they lose their jobs?

So is it fair that the head of the organisation should be made a scapegoat for people lower down an organisation who were actually involved in these awful situations?

Natasha Whittam wrote:As I'm sure you're aware, this Police Commissioner bloke for South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright, is taking some stick because he was in charge of Rotherham Children's Services when all this alleged abuse was happening.

But is he really to blame? People at the very top of large organisations rarely have day-to-day contact with the plebs on the ground. How was he supposed to spot all this abuse? Surely it's the social workers on the ground who are to blame?

This current situation is similar to that of Sharon Shoesmith who was top dog at Haringey Children's Service when Baby P was killed by his parents. She was sacked and ultimately blamed for what happened when she never even knew who Baby P was until he died. But plenty of people within the council knew all about Baby P and his family but did nothing. Why didn't they lose their jobs?

So is it fair that the head of the organisation should be made a scapegoat for people lower down an organisation who were actually involved in these awful situations?

 WTF???

For someone who consistently argues that Dougie Freedman is entirely to blame for the poor performance of his staff, despite Dougie not actually getting game time on the pitch himself, you have a lot of balls to come out with this - even if the general consensus is that you only have two.

EPIC U-TURN!!!

wanderlust wrote:
 WTF???

For someone who consistently argues that Dougie Freedman is to blame for the poor performance of his staff, despite Dougie not actually getting game time on the pitch himself, you have a lot of balls to come out with this - even if the general consensus is that you only have two.

EPIC U-TURN!!!

It's completely different. BWFC aren't a large organisation, Dougie has day-to-day contact with the plebs on the pitch. He signs them and he picks them.

The boss of Children's Services wouldn't even hire these people directly, they simply wouldn't have contact.

Understand?

Hard to call, but bear in mind that he rose to the position he did, because he must have claimed, and been accepted, as having the right skill set for the job. He was paid handsomely for the role, a fee he obviously accepted. As time has moved on, it would appear that he either didn't have the requisite skills, or didn't use/show them sufficiently, or correctly. he may not have hands on with every case, but I cannot believe he was not aware of anything. it was either his inability to recognise the problem, and not watching what his workforce were doing/not doing, or a decision on his part to ignore it for whatever reason, (although the racism card is being mooted by some). He has now failed in both of his roles, so how he cannot accept responsibility, and resign, I don't know. Even if his head rolls, others further down the line should also be held responsible, (as they were in the Sharon Shoesmith case)

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
 WTF???

For someone who consistently argues that Dougie Freedman is to blame for the poor performance of his staff, despite Dougie not actually getting game time on the pitch himself, you have a lot of balls to come out with this - even if the general consensus is that you only have two.

EPIC U-TURN!!!

It's completely different. BWFC aren't a large organisation, Dougie has day-to-day contact with the plebs on the pitch. He signs them and he picks them.

The boss of Children's Services wouldn't even hire these people directly, they simply wouldn't have contact.

Understand?

You set a new standard in double standards.

gloswhite wrote:Hard to call, but bear in mind that he rose to the position he did, because he must have claimed, and been accepted, as having the right skill set for the job. He was paid handsomely for the role, a fee he obviously accepted. As time has moved on, it would appear that he either didn't have the requisite skills, or didn't use/show them sufficiently, or correctly. he may not have hands on with every case, but I cannot believe he was not aware of anything. it was either his inability to recognise the problem, and not watching what his workforce were doing/not doing, or a decision on his part to ignore it for whatever reason, (although the racism card is being mooted by some). He has now failed in both of his roles, so how he cannot accept responsibility, and resign, I don't know. Even if his head rolls, others further down the line should also be held responsible, (as they were in the Sharon Shoesmith case)

Come on though, how many "top dogs" at large organisations are in touch with the people on the ground. How does a bloke sat in a fancy office find out that kids are being abused?

wanderlust wrote:

You set a new standard in double standards.

No, you just got shot down trying to be clever.

It's obvious that the relationship between a football manager and his players is nothing like that of a Chief Exec and people lower down the food chain.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

You set a new standard in double standards.

It's obvious that the relationship between a football manager and his players is nothing like that of a Chief Exec and people lower down the food chain.

Obvious to a moron.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Hard to call, but bear in mind that he rose to the position he did, because he must have claimed, and been accepted, as having the right skill set for the job. He was paid handsomely for the role, a fee he obviously accepted. As time has moved on, it would appear that he either didn't have the requisite skills, or didn't use/show them sufficiently, or correctly. he may not have hands on with every case, but I cannot believe he was not aware of anything. it was either his inability to recognise the problem, and not watching what his workforce were doing/not doing, or a decision on his part to ignore it for whatever reason, (although the racism card is being mooted by some). He has now failed in both of his roles, so how he cannot accept responsibility, and resign, I don't know. Even if his head rolls, others further down the line should also be held responsible, (as they were in the Sharon Shoesmith case)

Come on though, how many "top dogs" at large organisations are in touch with the people on the ground. How does a bloke sat in a fancy office find out that kids are being abused?

Are you saying that you wont ever accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong in your company, and you will always look for a scapegoat ? (also admitting that you don't know what people in your own company are up to). Nice to know that the workforce has got your support, I bet it makes them feel really loyal.

gloswhite wrote:

Are you saying that you wont ever accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong in your company, and you will always look for a scapegoat ? (also admitting that you don't know what people in your own company are up to). Nice to know that the workforce has got your support, I bet it makes them feel really loyal.

That's totally different though. My company is small with 16 employees and I see every one of these plebs each day. I also bug their phones, homes and bathrooms.

But if you were head of an organisation with thousands of employees how can you keep track of what each one is doing??

You seem to be in touch with your employees at ground level, you are interested in operating a turd patrol!!
Then again it's only a small organisation I suppose.

Soul Kitchen wrote:You seem to be in touch with your employees at ground level, you are interested in operating a turd patrol!!

Actually SK, that's not a bad idea. I'm going to place an advert in the MEN tomorrow for a Turd Patrol Officer.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

Are you saying that you wont ever accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong in your company, and you will always look for a scapegoat ? (also admitting that you don't know what people in your own company are up to). Nice to know that the workforce has got your support, I bet it makes them feel really loyal.

That's totally different though. My company is small with 16 employees and I see every one of these plebs each day. I also bug their phones, homes and bathrooms.

But if you were head of an organisation with thousands of employees how can you keep track of what each one is doing??

I know what you are saying, but in the case of Rotherham, would it be right just to sack a couple of people when it is now claimed that the managers themselves knew. If this is the case why wasn't action taken by the top man. Claiming ignorance doesn't seem to be an option now. I like your proactive approach to staff management, at least they know they will never be ignored when at work