Ban male nursery workers?

[BluntPlumHam]

I came across this article which has left me quite sick.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze665j2y51o.amp

Said 18 year old was newly qualified nursery worker who’d SA’d and raped 3 year olds.

Nurseries are desperate for workers and I have noticed through friends and families that there is now an increasing number of men entering the profession.

Men traditionally haven’t performed this role and I often find it difficult to envisage what attracts a male to this profession to begin with when we have so many instances of men who run away from childcare responsibilities.

Although men entering the profession can be a positive outcome the other very concerning outcome and on the potential rise is this.

Sex offenders will target this profession no doubt as it gives them easy access to children.

men are significantly more likely than women to sexually assault children.
Official statistics consistently show that the vast majority of individuals convicted of, or reported for, child sexual abuse (CSA) are male. For example:

• In the year ending March 2019, the Crime Survey for England and Wales found that 92% of adults who reported experiencing CSA said the perpetrator was male only.
• In 2022/23, almost 99% of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse offences in the UK were men.
• Reports to the Australian Royal Commission by victims and survivors of institutional abuse revealed that 93.9% of the abuse was perpetrated by an adult man.

So just a blanket ban on them all together ?

It isn’t my personal opinion but I do think we ought to have measures in place to make nurseries more secure and safer. This thread is to invite discussion.

Also, kudos to those brave little 3 year olds who had the courage to tell their parents because they’ve saved a lot of potential victims in the future. My thoughts and wishes for a life time of healing for them and theirs.

You can’t argue with that. Fuck.

Jesus christ.

In the past couple of years you mean?
Thomas Waller: A teenage nursery worker from Surrey was convicted in November 2025 of raping and sexually abusing children as young as three. His offences were deemed serious enough for a potential prison sentence of up to 17 years when sentenced at a crown court.
Andrew Evans: In December 2024, a former nursery worker from East Sussex was jailed for 14 years and four months for sexually assaulting young children at a nursery in Crowborough. He pleaded guilty to two counts of penetration of a girl under 13, one count of assault by touching, and one count of assault by penetration of a boy under 13.
Craig Ordish: A nursery worker from Staffordshire was jailed for 10 years in April 2024 for sexual offences involving children, including sexual assault, inciting sexual activity, and possessing indecent images.
Jayden McCarthy: Jailed in July 2021 for 11 years and six months for raping and sexually assaulting children at a nursery in Torbay. CCTV footage was used as evidence in his conviction

And currently one on trial:
Bristol-based nursery worker charged with rape of toddlers - BBC News https://share.google/Len0TtV4dRsO28jFp

@Rara12 thank you for taking the time to post the article. I had my suspicions when I was drafting the thread that nurseries would be on a predator’s radar for sure.

The psychology of such predators is a whole new area of insight which should be used in conjunction with statistics to understand the implications of allowing men to work in this area.

We know they are opportunitists and impulsive. Often part of complex networks which support one another. All of this simply confirms my hypothesis that an increase in male workers will mean an increase in CSA in early years settings.

How on earth do you only get 11 years in jail for SA toddlers?!

I assume because he was only 16 at the time.

We had a horror story in the US, honestly I don’t think men should adopt children, whether single or as a couple. There was a similar surrogacy scandal as well. Sure it isn’t isolated

https://people.com/ga-couple-adopted-young-boys-filmed-sexual-abuse-house-of-horrors-8766348

That does not sound right. I'm not sure what your sources are, but it is an established fact that relative to the number of men in positions in direct contact with children, the incidents of SA are a much larger percentage compared to women. Again, it is about mitigating risk, not eliminating them. Your position seems to be that if it cannot be eliminated completely, we should just let it continue.

How many cases of children being sexually abused are acceptable collateral damage so that a very small number of men who quite fancy working in a nursery don't have to be disappointed?

A quick google brings up 3 female nursery workers and 4 male nursery workers in the last two years. And males make up 3% of the workforce.

If we are talking about dignity, not risk then why should only young girls be allowed dignity? Young boys are changed by strange women all of the time.

God that's horrific 😢 I wonder if they met on one of the paedophile sites and planned it all from the start. 😢

That is indeed horrific and doubtless there are other accounts that are equally harrowing.

But if we ban men from adopting at all, then shouldn’t we say that men shouldn’t be allowed to live with children at all? My DSis and I were sexually abused by our F, and our DM had no idea! She thought he was a perfectly loving father, and only discovered the truth 10 years ago.

And certainly women should never bring another man into the lives of their DC, as stepfathers are even more likely to sexually abuse the children living with them.

Whereas there are also other men who make really loving adoptive fathers (including my DH and DBIL, married to my DSis), as well as loving fathers and stepfathers.

The reality is that there are men who sexually abuse children, and it isn’t realistic to say that none of them should ever live with young children.

But I am inclined to agree about male nursery workers. That’s one risk that can be avoided.

All violent crime is predominantly committed by males, it is why we have sex segregated prisons (thankyou Elizabeth Fry), toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms. But we don't prevent men living with women, even though women are most likely to be sexually assaulted by a man they live with than a stranger. And we don't ban football matches even though domestic violence increases after big games.

If we want to stop male violence we need to change how we raise boys, we need to ensure there is adequate safeguarding in nurseries and schools, we need to deal properly 'minor' offences that we know are committed on the way to more serious violent acts. But we can't prevent all men from entering some careers, that would be equivalent to preventing women from entering certain careers 'for their own safety'. We do have to balance harm and benefit in these decisions.

I utterly reject this kind of thinking. Men have made themselves a safety risk in certain professions. We cannot profess equality, when men as a group just don’t meet the expected standard. And failure here means children will suffer.

I agree we need to do all of these things. But these are very much a long game, and we need to protect children now, not wait until we've raised a safer generation of men. Something we've not managed as yet.
We can and do ban men from some careers if it's considered proportionate. Working in a women's refuge for example.
Banning men for the safety of women or children is not equivalent to banning women for their own safety as its inappropriate to take away a person's choice to risk their own safety (within the law) but not to take away their choice to pose a risk to the safety of others.
And yes, harm and benefit needs to be balanced. But I don't see that the benefit to men as a group to be allowed to be nursery workers, when so few choose it anyway and there is still every other conceivable job open to them, justifies the harm to children.

I think one of the difficult things would be deciding where it would end? If we ban males from nursery, we'd then need to decide if it should go beyond that and if so, how far?

Do we only ban males from nurseries because children under, say, 3, are more likely to need toileting help and be less able or likely to speak up? If that's the case does that mean we need to ban males from working with the youngest children in paeds too?

What would happen to the current males working in nurseries, paeds areas of hospitals etc ? Do they just get sacked? What would happen to the current males in training? Do they just get kicked out of college/uni?

Does it end once children are 3? Or do we also extend it to nursery schools and primary schools?

I can understand the argument for it due to the statistics but I don't think it would ever be a realistic option due to how few men choose a career in early childcare in the first place, how any men affected may have a valid discrimination case due to current equality laws and how it could possibly affect wider society as it certainly says that childcare is firmly a woman's job and how would that affect women?

I honestly don't know.
I suppose each environment and job needs it's own risk assessment. However I think nurseries are the perfect storm. Many are trying to run on a shoe string as the costs are already ridiculous, so enough staff to double up for toileting, changing isn't possible. Staff are often young and in their first jobs, so red flags won't have been identified by previous employers, and DBS checks only tell you a person hasn't yet been caught in wrong doing.
Add to this children too young to speak up, the absence of the child's parents which sets the nursery apart from the other environments where men work closely with young children, and I do feel there is justification in making nurseries the exception.
As for men currently in the jobs, probably leave them be but tighten procedures, and just not recruit any more.

The other settings you mention don’t provide the opportunity or cover for CSA as much early year settings do. That’s the issue with nurseries, it’s an area that doesn’t have adequate safeguarding, funding or vetting. The potential victims are far too young to advocate for themselves and due to their delicate age are entirely vulnerable.

Despite recruitment levels of males being so low this thread has highlighted the increasing levels of CSA convictions alone in the last two/three years.

Schools and hospitals children are hardly ever alone for the opportunity to arise as much.

Your concern regarding the floodgates to open for sex based discrimination in other areas is valid however each environment needs to be assessed independently and individually.

I'd argue that some children in hospitals could be just as vulnerable, even more so. Just think of some of the nurses who have got away with murdering babies in NICU's and a lot of that could also be put down to lack of adequate safeguarding, not enough staff etc.

It's a reason why some argue that men shouldn't be allowed on maternity wards overnight. Not as much staff around, easier to target the most vulnerable etc

Children in both NICU and PICU won't have parents with them overnight and are more likely to be sedated etc so very, very vulnerable.

Women are absolutely entitled to exclude men from their homes - they are at perfect liberty to decide not to live with men so there is no need to ban it. When it comes to public spaces, that is where society at large need to make collective rules to protect women as a group where they do not have that individual choice (prisons, hospitals etc. are particularly good examples).

I echo other posters re the clear blue sea between the idea of banning an individual from something for the safety of others and banning that individual purely for their own safety.

Even assuming outsize male violence can simply be curbed by nurture, we'll need to figure out how, figure out practically how to implement it and then wait several generations for it to take fully effect.

I think we need an interim plan.

I'd argue that some children in hospitals could be just as vulnerable, even more so. Just think of some of the nurses who have got away with murdering babies in NICU's and a lot of that could also be put down to lack of adequate safeguarding, not enough staff etc.

I am not saying the risk to children on paed’s wards isn’t there but it is unlikely to be anywhere near the level of risk in nurseries. Simply because of the setting and typically one parent tends to stay the night with child this is the case for long term child patient’s too. They’re open wards as well so CSA would be difficult for an opportunist.

As for the NICU claim, again if you compare the conviction rate between child CSA in a nursery to that of murder of nicu babies I think you’d come to the conclusion that they’re not comparable at all. Beverly Allit and Lucy Letby come to mind only but happy to be corrected on it.

It's a reason why some argue that men shouldn't be allowed on maternity wards overnight. Not as much staff around, easier to target the most vulnerable etc

This is a separate issue albeit distantly related. Men statistically commit DA related offences far more than women. There are no background checks when allowing visitors on wards. so to allow them to stay over night on open maternity wards is definitely a risk to the safety and wellbeing of all present.

NICU and PICU are intensive care units, parents don't usually stay on them overnight and babies/children are often sedated and ventilated which can make them even more vulnerable.

They are not the same as regular children's wards, though children could still be vulnerable at night as not all parents stay and lack of staff etc.

YABU

All very well to advocate, but it's unlikely to be politically possible. I can't imagine either side of mainstream politics embracing a blanket ban.

What could be more achievable would be a general relaxation of anti-discrimination legislation in employment practices.

Nurseries and childcare services would then have the option of refusing to employ men (in those regions where they don't currently have this option), and those that adopt this policy may well have a competitive advantage over those that don't.

But I suspect in the long term, given the resurgence of the hard right, this could not be achieved politically without negotiation that would also result in women losing anti-discrimination protection in the employment market.

Perhaps "sexual equality" was always doomed to be a fleeting and unrealistic legislative aim.