![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUsXIT83LgA3V9hPt73AI0MX4r7g1szr7smGZWNSl8yHe6THhJfvDFezKCVg2xnKh13WXcGu5gNVJq___VdYFRAUDBx7eC1AgzYCKjpkDk4J0umyGYVtEOoi4Fd3ICJClqGHIN/s200/Balls.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBVv4HA-x-SbUZEU-K8hyGuC0CDn_t65AGITPb2wRabAlXobvrnYhpki_5lcJYB8b8Ld41aV8x05YEpHCNhk2hjqTFMJG3cibRCThI0pCJrEMXNIU5t0gDaVaqH9uPhftNTzs/s200/The-Baby-P-case-childrens-006.jpg)
Presumably the government thinks that the court ruling is just saying that Ed Balls went about dismissing Shoesmith in the wrong way. Again, as I said in the previous post, the court wasn't just saying there should have been a meeting between Balls and Sharon Shoesmith but that she should have been given the opportunity to put her case. The government still doesn't seem willing to listen to this case. I agree with Ed Balls that urgent action from the government is required, but not because of a "constitutional ambiguity", which is what he says is the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment