AGAIN - Nursery worker found guilty [CONTENT WARNING: Details of CSA]

[AliceAbsolum]

https://www.whitchurchherald.co.uk/news/national/25838680.nursery-worker-guilty-multiple-sexual-offences-children-care/

Seriously when are they going to ban men from nurseries? I don't care if some other innocent men have to find other jobs.

It makes me feel so sick, I can't even comprehend it.

[title edited by MNHQ to include content warning]

Twisting my words is not going to change this thread. A monster got a job in a nursery and put these poor children through the most horrific abuse which will stay with them for the rest of their lives. And he'll probably have a cushy time in prison being protected .And it's not the first time this has happened by far. Peados seek out jobs in nurserys to abuse kids. That is a fact . This thread is not about women scoring points off each other is about the absolute disgust and horror we have at these mostly men and what the hell can be done about it

I've worked in a nursery rated outstanding by Ofsted I left because children were bullied I don't mean in the toilets I'm sure going in and out of the toilets would show enough and help to protect

Sorry I'm talking about using cameras above didn't make it clear

This is a strange reply given that I explicitly say:

No. First, eliminate the biggest, easiest risk to get rid of: men. Now fewer children will be sexually abused. Yay! Second, work on better safeguarding overall, to reduce the remaining risk to as close to zero as possible.

What's tripping you up?

TLDR: Other industries decided to go full out to avoid harm coming to the people they were responsible for. It worked. The childcare industry could and should be doing the same. By all means ban men. As we have seen from things posted on this thread, sometimes women in nurseries harm children. So what else on top of banning men, should the industry also be doing to make a "sometimes" incident into a "never" incident?

I rather be broke than send my child to an awful nursery.

But having your child in a good nursery is an asset, especially for preschool (and parental mental health, modern life isn’t set up to being SAHM without extended family support).

I give up, I'm clearly not communicating very well tonight.

FWIW, I was merely disagreeing with the assertion that men were the biggest risk to child welfare in nursery. I think the biggest risk is probably inadequately trained or too few staff.

again - I'm not trying to stick up for the menz hurty feelz.

I didn't send mine to daycare. I took them to kindergarten 3 days a week and stayed with them all day. It was great fun. But not every parent can do that. Some need to work, and need childcare.

I'm just aghast that people are so disinterested in reducing the vastly increased risk of sexual abuse that men present to their children in nursery settings. Again, under 5% of men commit 60% of the abuse, and paedophiles are actively using using nurseries as hunting grounds. And you're not bothered?

This was absolutely horrific. I feel so sorry for the children and families involved, and I think she deserves every minute of prison time she gets.

However, it’s either a) beyond naive and stupid or b) thoroughly disingenuous to equate her crimes with sexual assault/rape of babies/toddlers by adult males.

Fair enough. I would say that both issues should be addressed, though.

What early years developmental opportunities does a child miss out on if they don’t attend nursery? Genuine questions because millions of children don’t go to nursery and do absolutely fine developmentally. I couldn’t be a SAHM (just not for me) but I wouldn’t assume that a child is better off in a nursery vs being at home with an engaged parent. From what I’ve read, consistent care and attention from a single primary care-giver is much more beneficial for a child under the age of 3 than a nursery.

Provided they have a normal parent, no child needs to be in a childcare setting until they are 2 or 3 let's be honest. They have more than enough development opportunities with their parent and clubs and activities.

It's important to prepare them for school, but before preschool age, they're fine!

You should start a thread about your concerns - that women are more likely to kill a child.

It is a valid concern.

The concern on this thread is about how (some) men, employed by nurseries, commit sexual abuse.

The problem is that peados will take advantage of poor staffing and safeguarding levels

I too looked for a nursery with exclusively female staff for this reason (not that it eliminates it completely). In the end, there was a single male staff member at our nursery - the chef. Ours was a workplace nursery, with an onsite canteen, all the children’s meals were prepared in there. He probably only spent about 10% of his time actually in nursery. He did once joke with me that the only children’s names he knew were the allergy children that he had to prepare special meals for.

Those poor babies and their families.

If the owners (and thus insurance companies) behind nurseries and care homes were made legally responsible for safeguarding failures resulting in sexual abuse, they’d stop employing men pdq.

Agreed. That's why I think banning men needs to be first and immediate, with increased safeguarding across the board following right on the heels of that.

You don't seem to have finished your post.

You seem to have justified the reason for women.

I'm inclined to believe that ANY person who.kills has serious mental health issues

Yes I agree with you

I have a wonderful, lovely son, who I don't think would ever do anything to hurt another person. But I am aware that men as a demographic are the greatest risk to children in nursery settings, followed by poor safeguarding in general, so I am happy for him to be banned from nursery work (just as men are banned from being mammographers) if it means fewer children are sexually abused in nurseries.

Because - shocking opinion I know - I don't think my son's desire to work with young children outweighs the harm of child rape.

I’ve got boys. I adore them. But when they grow up I won’t get viscerally offended if other people don’t automatically trust them to look after their children.

Also background checks are only good if you've been previously caught. Otherwise of course it'll come back all clear.

A few years ago someone we knew who had an enhanced dbs was ' a typical all round good guy' no one had a clue.
He did something vile. Got caught , years and years of things were found on his laptop.
Images were taken prior to the dbs checks. yet he passed the dbs as he'd never been caught prior.

Plus it's a lie. As I commented earlier in the thread, studies tend to find that men and women kill their children in roughly equal numbers OR that more fathers kill their children than mothers.

Mothers are more likely to do it in the first year of life, generally due to psychosis, and are more likely to also be victims of intimate partner violence. Meanwhile, fathers seem more likely to do it when viewed across the entirety of a child's childhood, out of anger or to punish the mother, and are more likely to be intimate partner abusers.

Exactly this. I obviously love my DS and my brother to bits but would completely understand if a woman who didn’t know them did not want either of them to look after her child.

I’ve always told my male relatives: if you are walking behind a woman on a quiet, deserted street a night - cross the road. Not because I think they are rapists but because I know she won’t know they aren’t and it’s unnerving for her. I’m able to see things from another woman’s perspective without thinking the worst of men I know.

Trying to blame women and manipulate them with daft sarcastic 'let's just kill all men then' chat is just that, daft. They're just women trying to protect children. They're not the problem.