View Full Version : Nursery worker arrested.
cuddlepop
09-Jun-09, 20:00
Do you think our current system of vetting workers for "vulnerable others" working is stringent eneogh.
A 39 yearold woman has been arrested down south for apparantly being involved in indecent images of children being circulated on the net.
This woman is currently employed as a nursery worker.[disgust]
I think as well as background checks you should be assessed mentally,emotionally and physically to work with "vulnerable others" .
The present checks are totally inadequate.[disgust]
Aaldtimer
09-Jun-09, 20:16
I think we should wait for the outcome of this story.
It was explained on the news that this woman was tracked down by the t-shirt(featuring the nursery) she was wearing, on a photo, on a computer under investigation, in another part of the country entirely.
It was made clear that it may not have been one of the indecent images.
Full facts aren't known about this case so it shouldn't be discussed on a public forum until a further public statement from the Police.
cuddlepop
10-Jun-09, 09:54
Point taken but that doesnt answere the question if you think checks that are carried out just now are adequate?
The Angel Of Death
10-Jun-09, 10:49
Point taken but that doesnt answere the question if you think checks that are carried out just now are adequate?
Why is it as a society are we always finding someone guilty before anything is proven the term mud sticks is a good one here we don't know anything about this woman she might be completely innocent all we have to go on at the moment is SPECULATION nothing else all the police are doing is checking and confirming beyond doubt and i sincerely hope that they find nothing wrong however until something concrete is found the term innocent untill proven guilty by a jury of your peers spring to mind
But regarding the checks in place at the moment there is no such a thing as a check that will guarantee 100% accuracy of the person being tested and prob will never be the tests in place will always miss someone now and again that's just how it is all we can do is learn from it and make sure that it NEVER happens again
However the tests that we have now are infinitely better than what we had a few years ago where any tom dick or harry could take up a position of responsibility with kids and people at risk
Do you think our current system of vetting workers for "vulnerable others" working is stringent eneogh.
I think as well as background checks you should be assessed mentally,emotionally and physically to work with "vulnerable others" .
The present checks are totally inadequate.
Point taken but that doesnt answere the question if you think checks that are carried out just now are adequate?
I'm neither in a position nor qualified to answer those questions, and I presume most orgers are in a similar position to me. I'll leave that to the experts and scaremongers.
I'm afraid to say maybe even ashamed to say that if my children were at that nursey then I would think she was guilty until proven inoccent. Think of all those parents now who have the long wait of finding out if their children are any of the children in the indecent pictures circulated. Awful and unthinkable come to mind.
Do you think our current system of vetting workers for "vulnerable others" working is stringent eneogh.
A 39 yearold woman has been arrested down south for apparantly being involved in indecent images of children being circulated on the net.
This woman is currently employed as a nursery worker.[disgust]
I think as well as background checks you should be assessed mentally,emotionally and physically to work with "vulnerable others" .
The present checks are totally inadequate.[disgust]
Perhaps the woman has been checked for those I've highlighted but was so clever and devious she managed to hoodwink those carrying out the checks. Or perhaps she is innocent.
You're presuming the woman is guilty, yet you know as much as I do, which is diddly squat. How would you like it if you were in her position?
Mods: why is this thread still here?
Present checks would only show if she had been caught or convicted of a crime.
percy toboggan
10-Jun-09, 15:15
I'm afraid to say maybe even ashamed to say that if my children were at that nursey then I would think she was guilty until proven inoccent. Think of all those parents now who have the long wait of finding out if their children are any of the children in the indecent pictures circulated. Awful and unthinkable come to mind.
An emotional repsonse and an understandable one.
I agree with the others who say we need to let the truth come out.
My initial reaction was to assume there must be some sort of mistake here surely, given that a woman is implicated. Thankfully, and predictably such circumstances are rare.
At least nobody seems to have been physically hurt here but again we must wait and see.
Mums and Dads who are directly involved cannot be expected to be rational or sage-like at this early stage. Those keen to see the situation through the Parents eyes should step back and wait for the evidence to come out.
Aaldtimer
10-Jun-09, 15:23
Should this guy be allowed to work with kids?
http://celebrity.aol.co.uk/2009/06/10/jackos-wacko-tour-demands/
:eek:
well she has now been charged with sexual assault, which is quite a big umbrella if you get my drift. could be any number of things.
this must be terrible for the parents of the children at the nursery.I cant imagine what they must be going through knowing that most of the photos were taken inside the nursery! you send your child to somewhere you think they are safe & this sort of thing happens.
cuddlepop
10-Jun-09, 16:47
Perhaps the woman has been checked for those I've highlighted but was so clever and devious she managed to hoodwink those carrying out the checks. Or perhaps she is innocent.
You're presuming the woman is guilty, yet you know as much as I do, which is diddly squat. How would you like it if you were in her position?
Mods: why is this thread still here?
The woman has been charged and I can honestly say I'd seriously consider my contacts if I was working with small children.
Your contacts are looked into when you join any of the armed services or the police.
Are our children not worthy of the same treatment?[disgust]
Seems like it's all too easy for this to happen in this day and age with the use of camera phones. What a nightmare for all the parents involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8093490.stm
cuddlepop
10-Jun-09, 17:03
Seems like it's all too easy for this to happen in this day and age with the use of camera phones. What a nightmare for all the parents involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8093490.stm
All mobile phones could be left in the office at the nursery/place of employment.
If there is an emergency someone can phone there direct.
Are out kids safe nowhere.:~(
Why is it as a society are we always finding someone guilty before anything is proven the term mud sticks is a good one here we don't know anything about this woman she might be completely innocent all we have to go on at the moment is SPECULATION nothing else all the police are doing is checking and confirming beyond doubt and i sincerely hope that they find nothing wrong however until something concrete is found the term innocent untill proven guilty by a jury of your peers spring to mind
But regarding the checks in place at the moment there is no such a thing as a check that will guarantee 100% accuracy of the person being tested and prob will never be the tests in place will always miss someone now and again that's just how it is all we can do is learn from it and make sure that it NEVER happens again
However the tests that we have now are infinitely better than what we had a few years ago where any tom dick or harry could take up a position of responsibility with kids and people at risk
Very true about the checks. When done properly an enhanced enclosure will pick on even your parking fines.
I'm afraid to say maybe even ashamed to say that if my children were at that nursey then I would think she was guilty until proven inoccent. Think of all those parents now who have the long wait of finding out if their children are any of the children in the indecent pictures circulated. Awful and unthinkable come to mind.
No one can blame you for that. I would too in your postition as a parent but we have to be sure before we point fingers.
Present checks would only show if she had been caught or convicted of a crime.
Exactly right starry. Unfortunatly this could've been her first time doing it and therefore the checks did not pick it up but she will never work with kids or vulnerable people ever again after this.
The woman has been charged and I can honestly say I'd seriously consider my contacts if I was working with small children.
Your contacts are looked into when you join any of the armed services or the police.
Are our children not worthy of the same treatment?[disgust]
All child care workers at the nursery i work in have to have two references and they must have them and your disclosure before starting work. my previous employer took a month and half to sent a reference therefore leading to me being out of work for that period. But it is all for the kids safety.
All mobile phones could be left in the office at the nursery/place of employment.
If there is an emergency someone can phone there direct.
Are out kids safe nowhere.:~(
In the nursery i work in all mobiles are not allowed in the rooms with children. they are kept in the staff room for use during breaks only and must be used outside at the back of the nursery away form the kids play areas or used in the staff room. Nowhere else is it allowed.
The pictures taken by the nursery cameras stay in the nursery and only go out with parents.
It is against any confidential policy for pictures to be taken by a private camera and used out of the nursery.
This woman has broken that and is not a representive of all child care workers.
Let us all be thankful that this woman will never work with children and vulnerable people ever again.
I think what this woman has done with those pictures that she was not allowed to have in the first place is sick and vile. I do not understand why people do these things to children and like properly all the orgers my first reaction if i found another staff member abusing a child in this way would be to grab the child and take him/her away from her and report her to the manager or area manager immediately.
tonkatojo
10-Jun-09, 19:08
Very true about the checks. When done properly an enhanced enclosure will pick on even your parking fines.
No one can blame you for that. I would too in your postition as a parent but we have to be sure before we point fingers.
Exactly right starry. Unfortunatly this could've been her first time doing it and therefore the checks did not pick it up but she will never work with kids or vulnerable people ever again after this.
All child care workers at the nursery i work in have to have two references and they must have them and your disclosure before starting work. my previous employer took a month and half to sent a reference therefore leading to me being out of work for that period. But it is all for the kids safety.
In the nursery i work in all mobiles are not allowed in the rooms with children. they are kept in the staff room for use during breaks only and must be used outside at the back of the nursery away form the kids play areas or used in the staff room. Nowhere else is it allowed.
The pictures taken by the nursery cameras stay in the nursery and only go out with parents.
It is against any confidential policy for pictures to be taken by a private camera and used out of the nursery.
This woman has broken that and is not a representive of all child care workers.
Let us all be thankful that this woman will never work with children and vulnerable people ever again.
I think what this woman has done with those pictures that she was not allowed to have in the first place is sick and vile. I do not understand why people do these things to children and like properly all the orgers my first reaction if i found another staff member abusing a child in this way would be to grab the child and take him/her away from her and report her to the manager or area manager immediately.
All the above is true, What worries me, the the person in question will serve her time/punishment then given the graveness of the crime she as a female would be given a new identity and moved else where. I wonder if then she would be obliged to sign the sex offenders register as well or would that put in jeopardy her new identity ?.
I know this sounds sexist but past judgements make me wonder about the fairness of the courts. I await the screams of indignation
All the above is true, What worries me, the the person in question will serve her time/punishment then given the graveness of the crime she as a female would be given a new identity and moved else where. I wonder if then she would be obliged to sign the sex offenders register as well or would that put in jeopardy her new identity ?.
I know this sounds sexist but past judgements make me wonder about the fairness of the courts. I await the screams of indignation
I don't agree with you. She will not be shown faviouriteness because she is female. She will have to sign the sex offenders register and will find it hard to get another job due to it but it will be all her fault.
The cold facts can never be denied.
But if it does happen and she is given a new identity it is stating that to do this is ok and she will try again. All in all which will be putting our kids in danger. As a former child care worker she would have been trained in abuse and therefore will know the damage she has done to the kids.
The law and goverment if they allow her to have a new identity are saying its ok to do this to kids and are creating another oportnity for her to do it again as our enhanced enclosures will not pick it up after a change of identity. Its no wonder cuddlepop is so wound up bout it. :~(
Well we can never be too careful. It certainly hammers home that we cannot assume our kids are safe just because the childcarers are female and are supposed to be nurturing and caring. Frightening, really frightening.[disgust]
Well we can never be too careful. It certainly hammers home that we cannot assume our kids are safe just because the childcarers are female and are supposed to be nurturing and caring. Frightening, really frightening.[disgust]
We are all capable of being nutruring male or female. In fact i have met many male child care workers who are excellent with the kids. We need more men in the profession. As an example i am maternal and absoultly love being with kids. My sister isn't so keen. If there is a baby/child in a room i'll go to him/her and say hello and play with him/he, always smiling, my sister will only do so if he/she goes to her or she is asked to look after her/him. I have always adored children and as the second oldest of six i was the one that helped my parents look after the younger ones. my sister was more interested in playing her games as a child. Now my three younger brothers are almost teens one of them a teen already, and as i am the one out of their older siblings whos always had the most time for them it is me that they look forward to seeing and enjoy seeing more of. More so that my middle youngest brother who is austisc(spelling) cried when i had to go back down to ness when i last visited last month.
1) we have to be sure before we point fingers.
2) Let us all be thankful that this woman will never work with children and vulnerable people ever again.
3) She will have to sign the sex offenders register
1) We have to be sure before pointing fingers eh?
2) What's this? A pointing finger!!
3) Look, there's another one!!
Dear Doctor.
1) We have to be sure before pointing fingers eh?
2) What's this? A pointing finger!!
3) Look, there's another one!!
Dear Doctor.
Scorrie it was cuddlepop who said she had been charged so no finger pointing there but at the facts. when i said about the sex offenders register it was to reassure tonkatojo that she would not become a danger to any more innocent children.
Why do you feel the need to pick on a post when i'm only responding to what other orgers have said??
You are missing the point of this thread i fear. Cuddlepop has said that the woman has been charged and after tonkatojo's post about worrying bout this woman gettng away with it, i had to say that she would not.
As a child care worker i have in depth knowledge about how it'll work with the nurseries and their systems for checking and i can say that if it is true that she ahs been charged then she will have to sign the sex offenders register and will never be a danger to any other child in a nursery as she'll never pass the disclosure check.
So perhaps you should pay attention to waht the other orgers are saying instead of on my posts scorrie;)
Tubthumper
10-Jun-09, 23:37
Remember that charged is not the same as convicted. Horrible story but lets wait until due process is served.
Remember the McCanns and the reaming they suffered on this very org?
In fact, hands up all those orgers who weighed in with comments about how they were obviously guilty... what, no-one said anything?
Vistravi, it might be an idea to check up on the basics of law before commenting.
The Angel Of Death
11-Jun-09, 00:29
She will not be shown faviouriteness because she is female.
IF she is found guilty that will be the least of her worries if there is one thing prisoners all tend to agree on is nonce’s and child abusers are the scum of the earth and she will get a rough time for the whole of her sentence (again if found guilty) the fact she is a woman I would say will prob be even worse for her as she will be in a woman’s prison and a fair proportion of them will be mothers themselves
The law and government if they allow her to have a new identity are saying it’s ok to do this to kids
Its a tricky one this simply because after you have serve your "debt" to society you are free to get on with whatever is left of your life start again etc the problems are that because of the crime she has potentially committed she will never be able to carry on with her life with the current identity
On one side of it I do agree with the new identity after released but on the other side of the coin why should anyone that’s committed a crime like that get a new identity to start again you reap what you sow I say
I know ultimately it’s the right decision however it does leave a sour taste in my mouth knowing what potentially MIGHT happen if and when released
cuddlepop
11-Jun-09, 10:06
1) We have to be sure before pointing fingers eh?
2) What's this? A pointing finger!!
3) Look, there's another one!!
Dear Doctor.
This woman has been charged because of evidence on her phone are you suggesting they've no proof because her phone no matter "who" took the pictures is her responsibility.
My question was that inlight of this woman's involvement are our security tests sufficient?
Not point ti point ti finger.:roll:
In my job I had to have an enhanced disclosure done.Its only right if you are working with "vulnerable" people that these checks are done,but on the other hand just because you dont have a police record doesnt mean that you wont abuse people, but I suppose it does help.
When it comes to working with children the strictest checks need to be done.
Tubthumper
11-Jun-09, 12:24
This woman has been charged because of evidence on her phone are you suggesting they've no proof because her phone no matter "who" took the pictures is her responsibility.
My question was that inlight of this woman's involvement are our security tests sufficient?
Not point ti point ti finger.:roll:
There's a major difference between evidence and proof, just as there is a major difference between charged and convicted. If the evidence presented turns out to be flawed, charges against this individual could be dropped.
You seem to know a lot about the disclosure system: If an individual is not tried or is found not guilty of an offence, will there still be an entry on their Disclosure Certificate?
It's a horrible case, but remember an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty after due process of law. Cases have collapsed due to public speculation just like this.
And there seems to be a terrible silence regarding the McCanns case. Should they be banned from working with children?
cuddlepop
11-Jun-09, 13:14
There's a major difference between evidence and proof, just as there is a major difference between charged and convicted. If the evidence presented turns out to be flawed, charges against this individual could be dropped.
You seem to know a lot about the disclosure system: If an individual is not tried or is found not guilty of an offence, will there still be an entry on their Disclosure Certificate?
It's a horrible case, but remember an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty after due process of law. Cases have collapsed due to public speculation just like this.
And there seems to be a terrible silence regarding the McCanns case. Should they be banned from working with children?
I have and been checked myself when working with "vulnerable adults" and continue to have my checks renewed for work with children.
The disclosure formate as it stands is inadequate it only looks for what you may have done and "been caught" not how physcoligically suitable you are for working in that field.:(
McCanns are for another thread.
Enhanced checks are the only ones that show up "probable" doubt and not actually charges.
Scorrie it was cuddlepop who said she had been charged so no finger pointing there but at the facts. when i said about the sex offenders register it was to reassure tonkatojo that she would not become a danger to any more innocent children.
Why do you feel the need to pick on a post when i'm only responding to what other orgers have said??
You are missing the point of this thread i fear. Cuddlepop has said that the woman has been charged and after tonkatojo's post about worrying bout this woman gettng away with it, i had to say that she would not.
As a child care worker i have in depth knowledge about how it'll work with the nurseries and their systems for checking and i can say that if it is true that she ahs been charged then she will have to sign the sex offenders register and will never be a danger to any other child in a nursery as she'll never pass the disclosure check.
So perhaps you should pay attention to waht the other orgers are saying instead of on my posts scorrie;)
The quotes I made all came from YOUR posts. I will pick up on anything I see fit to address within someone's post where I see inconsistency. Being charged with an offence does not equate to guilt. If you wish to discuss matters involving such a scenario it would be more appropriate to wait until process has been served or refer to previous cases where similar offences were committed.
This woman has been charged because of evidence on her phone are you suggesting they've no proof because her phone no matter "who" took the pictures is her responsibility.
I have a Nikon camera here. If someone else borrowed it and took dodgy photos I should be the one that goes to jail then? I would argue it was Nikon's fault, no camera = no photos, maybe we should blame the guy who pioneered the photographic image.
Are YOU suggesting that IF this woman WAS innocent of actually taking the photos, then she should still be in a Police van and being shouted and spat at because, after all, SHE is responsible for HER phone?
It is highly likely that a guilty verdict will follow in time, for now we must wait before we run after Police vans shouting and spitting. A perfectly good bag of flour was wasted in the name of "I am outraged" today. No doubt, some would have carried out a lynching if they had had the chance. Why not abandon the legal process and let the news reports and papers decide who is guilty and then let the British Public decide the sentence, despite the fact that some of them would have difficulty stringing together a sentence!!
cuddlepop
11-Jun-09, 16:34
I have a Nikon camera here. If someone else borrowed it and took dodgy photos I should be the one that goes to jail then? I would argue it was Nikon's fault, no camera = no photos, maybe we should blame the guy who pioneered the photographic image.
Are YOU suggesting that IF this woman WAS innocent of actually taking the photos, then she should still be in a Police van and being shouted and spat at because, after all, SHE is responsible for HER phone?
It is highly likely that a guilty verdict will follow in time, for now we must wait before we run after Police vans shouting and spitting. A perfectly good bag of flour was wasted in the name of "I am outraged" today. No doubt, some would have carried out a lynching if they had had the chance. Why not abandon the legal process and let the news reports and papers decide who is guilty and then let the British Public decide the sentence, despite the fact that some of them would have difficulty stringing together a sentence!!
We were receiving threating text messages from my X.s phone and Oh went down to see a lawyer.He informed us that in the eyes of the law as he was the registered keeper of that phone then he was legally responsible for the messages even if he said he didnt send them.
She may have been charged but there is still the presumption of innocence.
I think this thread should be ended. It is not helpful to anybody.
As a child care worker i have in depth knowledge about how it'll work with the nurseries and their systems for checking and i can say that if it is true that she ahs been charged then she will have to sign the sex offenders register
I have read the guidelines for the Sex Offenders Register and it states that only those convicted, cautioned, or whom are found not guilty by reason of Insanity, are required to sign the Register.
my thoughts just now are with the parents. My youngest son is in nursery and i can only imagine the torture they must be going through just now.
I have lots of questions - photos taken in the nursery? how could that have happened
possibly nursery children abused - how could that happen (time, placeother memebrs of staff etc) when i was doing my nursery training, we werent even allowed to close a toilet door if we were in there with a child...
innocent until proven guilty - why has her identity been released - what IF she is innocent.
unfortunately, i do think there has to be some substance to this story.. i hope NOT - for the childrens sake (nursery AND her own) but as a mum, i have to say it hit home and scared the life out of me....
Tubthumper
11-Jun-09, 17:07
As a child care worker i have in depth knowledge about how it'll work with the nurseries and their systems for checking and i can say that if it is true that she ahs been charged then she will have to sign the sex offenders register a
Whoops! Not much in-depth knowledge there, eh? So if a gentleman was falsely accused of rape and was found not guilty, he wouldn't have to sign the SO register then?
Also, your lawyer was wrong. If your ex could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone wasn't in his posession, he would not be able to be held responsible for its use. Just like a car. This is a horrible case that does not benefit from ignorant hysterics wiring into the case with a load of tosh.
We were receiving threating text messages from my X.s phone and Oh went down to see a lawyer.He informed us that in the eyes of the law as he was the registered keeper of that phone then he was legally responsible for the messages even if he said he didnt send them.
You never answered the question I asked. Should the woman have equal guilt and be sentenced the same as the person who took the photos, simply because it was HER phone that took the image?
I had a gun, someone stole it and shot someone, am I the Murderer? (Hypothetical)
Tubthumper
11-Jun-09, 17:14
The disclosure formate as it stands is inadequate it only looks for what you may have done and "been caught" not how physcoligically suitable you are for working in that field.:(
Enhanced checks are the only ones that show up "probable" doubt and not actually charges.
What! Are you suggesting that we base employement prospects on what people MIGHT do? What next, ban people from working with kids because of the distance between their eyes, because they 'look shifty' or because they have dark hair??
And what on earth is 'probable doubt' in the enhanced disclosure? You'll have to dig into your in-depth knowledge of childcare arrangements here I think.
Whoops! Not much in-depth knowledge there, eh? So if a gentleman was falsely accused of rape and was found not guilty, he wouldn't have to sign the SO register then?
Also, your lawyer was wrong. If your ex could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone wasn't in his posession, he would not be able to be held responsible for its use. Just like a car. This is a horrible case that does not benefit from ignorant hysterics wiring into the case with a load of tosh.
Of course he wouldn't have to! If he's falsely accused then there is no charge and he's innocent. the register is for convicetd peodophilas(sp) or anyone who has sexually assulated a minor or raped someone or for someone who has abused children like this woman has been accussed of. The evidence seems very much against her.
I think you should say that to cuddlepop, i'm not the one that has the problem. ;)
Tubthumper
11-Jun-09, 22:35
I think you should say that to cuddlepop, i'm not the one that has the problem. ;)
I thought I had said that to cuddlepop. But you were the one claiming that pointing fingers is a bad idea, while busily pointing fingers.
And anyway, cuddlepop is wrong, she's claiming knowledge & expertise that she clearly does not have.
I think that CP claiming expertise is like the bloke who works the cash register in the petrol station claiming 'in-depth knowledge' of oil extraction and petrochemical processing & distribution.
Tubthumper
11-Jun-09, 23:18
Actually I think I was wrong, I think perhaps it was vistravi that was claiming in-depth knowledge. My apologies to all the gossiping speculating busybody 'experts' concerned.
Never mind, this case is too sickening to continue discussing.
http://forum.caithness.org/customavatars/avatar184_167.gif
In my job I had to have an enhanced disclosure done.Its only right if you are working with "vulnerable" people that these checks are done,but on the other hand just because you dont have a police record doesnt mean that you wont abuse people, but I suppose it does help.
When it comes to working with children the strictest checks need to be done.
I read your post and imagined Nick Griffin being photographed while uttering those words. It was priceless. Thanks! :D
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.