Well this is the only realistic option. The indignant screamers at the magistrates court do not help anyone - they are the C20th version of the pitchfork mob. They would turn up for any event as long as the cameras were present and it presented an opportunity show their indignant anger.

The people we all need to think of are the children who may have been involved, and their trusting parents. Did one parent ask to read the nursery's child protection policy? Did one of them look at the Ofsted report? Did one of them ask about CRB checks?

Parents will send their children to institutions on the basis that they've "heard nothing bad" about a school. They are however unaware that the system is set up to ensure they 'hear nothing bad' and Ofsted is one of the parites to this appalling state of affairs. Providing parents have heard noting bad, parents are uniformly eager to subcontract the welfare of their children to others without asking any hard or searching questions about child protection of the setting.

This is what needs to change in the UK. Until parents become very demanding more incidences such as this will emerge.

Right well Kudos to three different police forces (and the businessman that thought one of the offenders was just stealing his money, leading to the hacked emails that cracked the case) for working together and nailing these three offenders to the point where they're bang to rights, so no further trials, they will be sentenced next month.

Channel 4 News reported the proposal of a general study into the longer term effects on the children over up to 20 years, involved with those parents willing to participate, which might help future victims, it might not, at least for this case the resources *should* be there for either victims or witnesses due to the scale of the cluster.

Only one abuse excuse from the three so far, in fact it might have just been a flat-out lie considering it was supposed to have been written on Facebook. The nusery and general health authority may examine their own procedures and plenty of nurseries voluntarily banned camera phones among their workers, but we have not one but two female paedophiles locked up, so it's one more taboo busted for the ostrich crowd. We'll see what the general print coverage looks like in the morning.

king tut-
just wanted to respond to your earlier comment about the woman's photo: No, there is no real way to tell by appearance, but- to me, she has what i call a "Gacy smile", one that is hollow and empty, and doesn't reach the eyes.

Still breaking on this story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8303810.stm

That's person no.4, now it's all a matter of whether the cascade will continue or whether this is another one acting alone - all depends whether she confesses now like the others or takes it to trial as is her right.

I'm also going to have to disagree with Tom Perry, if you're the potential parent or relative of a child that may or may not have been abused, they do not need the intellectualised condemnation of their anger, they're allowed to feel whatever they want to feel and express it how they wish, it's not a cricket match, it's child abuse. In this particular case a CRB wouldn't have made any difference as George was clean - prior to working at that nursery anyway.

Still, every offender caught is busting down this "women don't abuse" nonsense which people seem to want to cling to all the time and that's the sole upside to the case.

BBC News obtained the tran>