I avidly followed the Baby P case after it exploded into the headlines in November 2008 and was, from the start, surprised by the lack of PR sense and humility displayed by Sharon Shoesmith, the ex-head of Haringey children’s services who was sacked after shortcomings in her department’s child protection systems came to light.

Following a botched press conference in which Ms Shoesmith failed to apologise for Peter Connolly’s death, putting any chance of damage limitation out of the window, a ‘witch hunt’ ensued. Shocked and disgusted members of the public nationwide bayed for heads to roll. It was inevitable that someone would be made accountable for this sorry case and, as Ms Shoesmith was at the helm of Haringey children’s services at the time and wasn’t showing clear signs of remorse, her neck was put on the line, so to speak.

And now, when the dust surrounding the case had almost settled, up pops Ms Shoesmith like a Jack-in-the-box, lifting the lid with her claim for unlawful dismissal and compensation for loss of earnings. Her lawyers are arguing that children’s secretary, Ed Balls, unlawfully removed Ms Shoesmith from her £133k a year post on the back of heavy media pressure, which included a petition signed by a million readers of ‘The Sun’ and presented to the government.

Shoesmith – through her lawyers - claims that she has post-traumatic shock disorder, will not work again, has been left penniless and has even contemplated suicide. And does the public’s heart bleed for the poor woman? I think not.

To be fair, I’m quite sure that being the target of sustained media frenzy and public hatred is an exhausting and soul-destroying experience. I also think Ms Shoesmith’s suspicions that Ed Balls removed her because he was being pressurised by the media and its millions of readers (aka the voting public) has credence. It may even be correct that, as suggested in a recent Guardian report, Ofsted downgraded its report about Haringey children’s services to back up the removal of Ms Shoesmith.

None of these factors are ideal but that’s just about as far as my sympathy goes. What else was Ed Balls to do? Leave her in place while the public became increasingly angered? Something went badly wrong at Haringey, nobody was taking responsibility for the case and so someone had to be made responsible.

Methinks Ms Shoesmith would have benefitted from some decent lessons in PR and reputation management. It seems that she’s a walking disaster in this field. Many of her problems could have been alleviated by looking remorseful in the first place, admitting mistakes and extending a heartfelt apology to the public and the family of Baby P (the ones who weren’t perpetrators).

If there were a ‘Shovel and Spade Award for Social Services PR’, Ms Shoesmith would undoubtedly win it. By refocusing attention on to the Baby P case, the problems at Haringey and her own department’s inefficiencies at the time, Ms Shoesmith is doing herself no great favours.

Even if she wins the compensation and scores a black mark against Ofsted, which is by no means a foregone conclusion, she’s put herself back into the firing line. Why not keep one’s head under the parapet, where it can’t be shot off – at least for a while longer? Worse still, she appears to be bleating “poor me, poor me”, which is hardly a good look under the circumstances. And being pictured in the tabloids browsing ‘The Guardian’s’ job section isn’t the greatest PR tactic either when you’re claiming you won’t work again.

We’ve already heard that Ms Shoesmith texted an Ofsted inspector requesting the inclusion of “anything positive” in his emergency report about Haringey’s children’s services, and that eight further children at risk of serious harm were found to be let down by her department. I suspect that won’t be the end of it.

The court case will probably reinforce the reasons why Ms Shoesmith was removed in the first place, while putting more people off signing up for jobs in child protection, which are increasingly hard to fill on the back of events at Haringey.

Even if Ms Shoesmith has reasonable grounds to complain, she continues to reinforce a negative public image and is part of the culture in Britain of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own failings or those of their team, for which they are directly responsible.