EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

      

 

Sharon Shoesmith ruling: Welcome but few cheers

Blame lay with Ed Balls for rushing his fences too eagerly and Haringey for following him over them too blindly

In its headline-making judgment on the Sharon Shoesmith dismissal case yesterday, the court of appeal did no more and no less than the senior courts are supposed to do. It reviewed the findings of the lower courts. It interpreted the laws that parliament has made. And it righted two wrongs against Ms Shoesmith. The wrongs were separately committed by the former children's secretary Ed Balls and then by Haringey council in peremptorily sacking the former head of the borough's children's services department after Ofsted's report following the Baby P case in 2008. The court's verdict was extremely strong on both counts. The Department for Education now intends to appeal to the supreme court. Haringey says it will do the same. That is their right. Whether, when they reflect on the court of appeal's unanimous judgment, that is a worthwhile use of scarce public money is another matter.

The court of appeal was extremely clear where blame lay for the way Ms Shoesmith was dismissed. It lay with Mr Balls for rushing his fences too eagerly and Haringey for following him over them too blindly. As soon as the horrific Baby P criminal case ended in November 2008, Mr Balls got Ofsted to conduct an urgent report on the state of the obviously compromised child safeguarding arrangements in Haringey. That was sensible, given the seriousness of the case and Haringey's reputation, though it was inevitably a bit of a rushed job. But, three weeks later, as soon as he received Ofsted's critical report, Mr Balls threw judgment to the winds. He called a press conference at which he publicly dismissed Ms Shoesmith. Haringey immediately suspended her and then, a few days later, fired her without compensation or payment in lieu of notice.

Very few people who have studied the Baby P case in detail will be in much doubt that Ms Shoesmith bears a very serious share of responsibility for the Baby P case failings and for the unacceptable state of child services in her borough at the time. If proper procedures had been followed it is unlikely she would have remained long in her post or have had any case against her dismissal. But Mr Balls, with Haringey in his wake, should not have blundered in the way that they reacted to the scandals. Ms Shoesmith was entitled to be treated in a procedurally proper way. Mr Balls brushed all that aside. He was too ready to do the bidding of the media, which wanted Ms Shoesmith's head immediately on a platter. He put his political convenience above his ministerial responsibility. Haringey followed where Mr Balls led. Incredibly, their cavalier approach to law has turned Ms Shoesmith into a victim. If Mr Balls had still been in office, yesterday's ruling should have forced his resignation. Instead, he insisted that he would have handled the case in exactly the same way if he had his time over again. This is not just foolish but worrying.

The list of those who bear some responsibility at various stages of the Baby P saga is a depressingly long one. Never forget, though, that the three people who killed him – his mother, her lover and their lodger – are the real criminals. Public revulsion at the killing, whipped up further by a media which constantly stereotypes and denigrates social workers, helped to turn Ms Shoesmith into a surrogate villain. Too weak to resist it, the local authority and the secretary of state colluded in the process. Both of them buckled in the face of the hue and cry. It was the job of the courts to make sure that the rule of law did not do the same. That is what the court of appeal did yesterday. "Whatever [Ms Shoesmith's] shortcomings may have been," its judgment said, "she was entitled to be treated lawfully and fairly and not simply and summarily scapegoated." She was indeed. These were strong, brave words. Not many come out of the Baby P story with any credit. Too late in the day for a dead child, the judges of the court of appeal are some of the rare exceptions.

Yemen: A perfect storm

President Ali Saleh's latest move may well turn out to be his last

When Sadiq al-Ahmar, the chief of Yemen's most powerful tribe, announced a ceasefire after five days of fighting in the capital that has left over 100 dead, there was deafening applause from the crowd, hundreds of thousands strong, who hoped beyond hope that the revolution they started could continue peacefully. But as fighter jets screamed overhead to bomb tribesmen who had wrested control of a military compound loyal to President Ali Saleh, there was little respite from the hell engulfing Yemenis in this conflict.

One-third of the population is undernourished, while 2.7 million are classed as severely food insecure. An Arab country neighbouring oil-rich states has levels of malnutrition and the stunting of child development more often associated with Afghanistan and Africa. In the last week, the price of water in the capital Sana'a rose eight-fold – that is if any water tankers were running at all. Residents consider themselves fortunate if they get two hours of electricity a day and the price of candles has nearly doubled. For many families the daily choice is between buying water or cooking oil. With 90% of staple foods imported, oil exports shut down, the economy at a standstill, gun battles raging, and a tyrant backed by the best-equipped part of his army – the republican guards – refusing to stand down, a perfect desert storm is blowing through this land.

For four months, faced with the defection of half his armed forces and masses thronging the streets demanding his resignation, Saleh has warned that he is the pole who holds up the tent. With him gone, he told anyone who would listen, all would collapse around him. As if to make this point a reality, shortly after the collapse of the fourth attempt at mediation by Gulf Arab neighbours last Sunday, his forces took on Yemen's most powerful clan, the Ahmars, who have been bankrolling the opposition and supporting hundreds of thousands of protesters camping out on the capital's streets.

Attempts to mediate a ceasefire were continuing last night, but Saleh's latest move may well turn out to be his last. He is attempting to do something that no other leader in Yemen has succeeded in doing. The other Ahmar brothers are Hamir, the deputy speaker of parliament, Hussein, another powerful tribal leader, and Hamid, a tycoon and founder of the opposition party, Islah. Saleh can sow chaos but he cannot win. And the longer he holds out, the less able he becomes to negotiate the terms of his departure. Between now and then, a full-scale humanitarian disaster could yet unfold. Like the country itself, Yemenis have run out  of slack.

Unthinkable? A freeze on Fifa

It would seem shameful if the Fifa presidential elections due to take place next week were permitted to go ahead

Tonight at Wembley perhaps the greatest football team in the world takes on one of their nearest challengers in what, if both teams perform at their best, will justify talk of "the beautiful game". And tomorrow, at the opposite end of the scale, comes the latest episode in the ever more squalid story of the game's governing body, Fifa, as Mohamed Bin Hammam, who is challenging for its presidency, and one of its most influential figures, Jack Warner, appear before its ethics committee to answer allegations of bribery. These proceedings bring the number of executive committee members under suspicion to nine out of 24. Now the incumbent Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, who is seeking a further term after 13 years distinguished, if that is the word, by self-regard and monumental complacency, is to face the ethics committee himself, following counter-claims by Mr Bin Hammam. Given the powers of patronage with which the committee are entrusted and the money and kudos involved in the World Cup bidding process, temptation must lurk around every corner. It's hard to see how any footballing nation can continue to look upon Fifa as clean enough to conduct it. In these circumstances, it would seem shameful if the presidential elections due to take place next week were permitted to go ahead. And if, beyond that, sweeping reform is denied, honest footballing nations will have to contemplate the unthinkable step of boycotting the whole World Cup process, starting with Brazil 2014.