Little Teds Nursery in Plymouth is under child porn probe- nursery worker found with child porn images.

Teds Nursery- abuse?

Teds Nursery-child porn probe
(with press sonnference video- although it seems to be loading slowly)

"During a press conference held at Crownhill police station this morning Chief Supt Jim Webster, commander of Plymouth police, admitted a number of items had been seized as part of the investigation including a disc which contained “more than a dozen” images of “a serious nature”.

Chief Supt Webster admitted officers were not just searching the properties for further photographic evidence, but also to determine whether any of the images could have been taken at the nursery itself."

"She said the nursery had around 60 children on its register with ages ranging from babies to four-year-olds."

"He said the images were of “young children, pornographic, illegal images and sufficiently concerning that we’ve mounted the investigation overnight.”"

-------------------

I strongly feel that this case should be taken with an extra hard iron fist- this woman needs to be made an example of. There is a chance that many children were abused here, and if that is so this is not going to be an easy thing to sort out.

The police havent confirmed if the woman was Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checked- but it was not a council run nursery so it is possible that she wasn't checked.

The Nursery (from last link):

"Little Teds opened in 1992 and operates from two rooms within Laira Green Primary School, as well as from a second unit opened at Laira United Church Hall in 2002 (It is this second unit at the church hall that is under investigation- thats what the news said anyway) .

The unit has access to other school facilities.

The setting operates from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday during term time only. There are 15 members of staff employed on a rota basis.

The unit is managed by a board of trustees and is a not for profit enterprise. It serves the Laira area of Plymouth.

It was visited by Ofsted inspectors in 2007 who said: “[Protecting children from harm or neglect and helping them stay safe] is satisfactory.
“Children are cared for in a mainly safe and secure environment.”
Inspectors added: “Use of risk assessments and vigilant supervision by staff reduces potential hazards for children within the setting.”

They said: “The setting promotes and safeguards children’s welfare by maintaining the majority of required procedures and documents. For example, all staff hold current first aid certificates and each has a good knowledge of child protection procedures.”"

-----------------

I am not surprised that Ofsted didn't notice anything- i don't think that this is the kind of thing that is very visible- if indeed abuse did take place at the nursery.

I hate it when things like this come on the news- and i ask myself- how can we stop these things from happening?!- thats why i think we need to be tougher on abusers.

Yuk. I noticed in the picture the police were hauling away garbage bags full of toys - all possible evidence, I guess. I wonder what they mean by "safety" in the Ofsted report. And how do they know that all of the employees have "a good knowledge of child protection procedures"? What's the Ofsted procedure for detecting if one these protectors turns out to be a predator?

Whether a setting is Council run or private there is no guarantee that all recruitment checks have been taken up by the setting. This is but one of the unsatisfactory "Child Protection" situations overseen and legislated by the DCSF. Please see the following article in the Times Educational Supplement of last week http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6014831&navcode=94



Again we have Ofsted, an inspectorate not known for the accuracy or quality of its welfare inspections. Follow this link to see an example of an appalling error by this inspectorate, they just shrug and say nothing. Please read the article and the comments below at: http://www.questions4schools.org.uk/forparents-rep1.php



Sadly the answer is that they do not. Again what Ofsted are meant to do and what they actually do are two different things.

The landscape of child protection in education is fractured as this article in the Times newspaper of April 09 indicates :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6156931.ece

Also on the Questions4Schools website is the head of Ofsted being interviewed at a recent Select Committee meeting on their failure to inspect and report against known failures at a particular school. http://www.questions4schools.org.uk/forparents.php follow this link and look for the screen with the title "Children Schools and Families Select Committee Meeting."

I have recently provided a comment to a well highly respected man in the field of Child Protection who is replying to the Times Ed Supplement. My comment to him as an abusee was:

Those with an unhealthy interest in the young are best rewarded when concentrating their effort towards child rich environments which include schools. In order to avoid repeating the criminal events which visited Stony Dean School in Amersham and Gatehouse School in Milton Keynes, where the executive body of both schools failed to secure robust checks on members of staff who went on to abuse, it is vital that all schools should embrace the NCSL course to protect the vulnerable for whom they are responsible. But it must also be remembered that a CRB clearance only means that a new or existing member of staff is unknown to the authorities, but they may still have an unhealthy interest in the young.

A CRB check (Criminal Records Bureau) informs a setting if someone is known to be a risk to children. It is a criminal offence for a setting to employ anyone who has been barred from working with children which a CRB check will confirm. But of course there are many more unknown perpetrators than the numbers of the CRB register.

But bizarrely while you can be charged for employing someone who is a known danger to children, there is still no statutory obligation on any setting to report alleged abuse (emotional, physical, or sexual) to the authorities, and if a setting fails to report alleged abuse and this is somehow discovered, there is no sanction on the setting for failing to report.

You really cound not make this stuff up!

And the nursery Worker, Vanessa George, was charged in Plymouth Magistrates court today. She is being held on remand for her own safety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8094663.stm

I got this from your link Donk:

"Police had drafted in 20 officers at the court for the hearing.

A plastic barrier was put up around the entrance to the court where a group of people had arrived.

There were more angry scenes as people shouted at the police van carrying Ms George away from court."

I hope that the public outrage that this is causing is being noticed, and that the government step up with child protection.

Looking at the photo of the vile criminal i would have never suspected, but i guess you can't tell by how people appear.

Also thanks for the lengthy reply Tom, you certainly know your stuff on this issue and i know you have been doing alot of work in this area of child protection. Keep it up.

Lewis

I read in the newspaper that they confirmed that the images- which are on the serious end of child porn, were taken in the nursery. Parents are having to fill out forms to say what identifying features their children have.

I'm finding myself a real need for a place to vent my anger!

I hear trees respond well to baseball bats, Lewis. But I forget myself. You don't do baseball on that side of the pond. How thoughtless of me!

"Public outrage"? Forgive me for perhaps being jaded, but I don't put much stock in public outrage when it comes to CSA. Oh, I'm certain that all kinds of people were standing outside screaming at the van and the perp, but I wouldn't really count any of them as allies.

That's true - make it a cricket bat, Lewis

For once I'm keeping an open mind on this one, sadly the media have let the "how could a woman do this" angle take everything over - I'm only interested in hearing about the case, which won't happen until the end of the year now. The best outcome would be if further intel was gleaned from her computers that helped more victims/caught more offenders than just those connected to the nursery.

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>