AIBU to feel uneasy about male staff in nurseries?

[Beautifulsiro56]

Males working in my cbildrends nursery- makes me feel so uncomfortable
Why would a male want to work in a nursery? Most nursery abuse cases are men.
Men shouldn't be allowed to work in nurseries? AIBU

Im asking you to guess based on what you think a paedophile might do. Do you think a paedophile who is taking sexual images of children and sharing them will say "no, i won't do that to the kids at work, their parents trust me!" Or do you think they'll exploit any child they have the opportunity to sexually abuse?

I would definitely guess the police examined her phone pretty closely and would have noticed if she'd been taking photos herself.
The police and courts found she hadn't physically abused any children and I certainly don't have any more insight than they do.

I don’t know. I would definitely not be the person I am today and I would not have received a good education if I’d have been home educated so I can see the advantages of children mixing in the wider community.
But I can’t disagree with your comments about guilty until proven innocent not the other way around.
I met a headteacher once who told me that they didn’t have paedophiles around here because it was a nice area
Complacencies got to be the biggest threat to children

Her only phone? Do you think she would take sexual pictures of children to share with other paedophiles, but not touch them? Is that how you think female paedophiles work, or all paedophiles?

I don't think she took any photos 🤔
But again, I wasn't involved with the investigation so I literally have no more idea what she did or didn't do than the police or courts.

"Zara Lancashire admits making and distributing indecent child images and publishing obscene articles."

Making and distributing images doesn't mean taking photos, it means forwarding, downloading, saving etc.
If you read the article it says:
The Crown Prosecution Service said "making" an image included opening an email attachment or downloading a website image.

Det Insp Fay Tooley, from Hertfordshire Police, said: "Lancashire has been brought to justice for the offences she committed, and while our investigation found they didn't involve the physical abuse of children, they are still of an extremely serious nature."

There's more explanation of making and distributing images here:
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/making-vs-distribution-what-indecent-images-charges-actually-mean/#What_does_making_indecent_images_mean

It's not the same as taking images.

But in schools, particularly secondary schools, the male teachers won't be toileting the pupils. In a nursery they will.

Some bizarre views here. No one is saying women are harmless, but they are overwhelmingly less likely to be paedophiles than men (2% vs 98% of paedophile convictions of women vs men).

I also don’t think anyone is saying people overlook it when women act inappropriately - where are you getting that from?

Laidlaw said her offences were revealed after a man she was in contact with online was arrested.
He said she had distributed category A images - the most serious category - four times.
One featured a child who appeared to be aged under two being sexually abused.
She had been in contact with people who used usernames including "Mr Bad" and "Pervert", the judge was told.
Laidlaw said Lancashire had been in possession of more than 150 images - 113 of which were category A.
He said she had, in messages, claimed to have abused children in her care - but had not been charged with any offences relating to children in her care.

I agree she hasn't been caught with images she took. I think you're naive if you think a paedophile who worked in a nursery, touted for babysitting jobs and was caught with any indecent images didnt take advantage of children in their care.

She will be out in 2 years or so.

All I know about all the nursery paedophiles that have been convicted in the last 6 months is what has been reported on - I really can't guess at whether the police and courts have missed something. I don't hold any other beliefs about them.

Most cases in nurseries have been from female staff, so although you feel that males don’t belong it’s not because they are more likely to abuse.

Nonsense

I don't remember hearing of a woman convicted on sexually abusing children in nursery in over a decade, whereas there have been three men convicted in the last few months.
What makes you think most cases are women?

We know that women pose a far lesser risk of sex crimes than men. So I cannot imagine there are a wealth of women taking photographs of children's genitals.

And I imagine men equally aren't caught doing that; I'm not sure why 'trust' would make one oblivious to a woman taking photographs of a child's genitals in a nursery. I would think it far more likely that men (and a small percentage of women) are taking them unseen, in the few moments they're alone while changing a nappy, as does happen with workers of both sexes in busy nurseries.

Besides, as I said, one man raped at least 12 children and put semen in the food of hundreds of others before he was caught, so what's your point, exactly?

Not to mention, while both are terrible, photographs alone are not as bad as penetratively raping a 5 month old (something I shouldn't have to point out).

As I believe I said, however, my children didn't go to nursery. They went to kindergarten, accompanied by me, and otherwise were always in my care or my husband's care, while young.

It's all based on guesses and surmisement with you, isn't it, while you ignore any and all statistics and facts?

The fact remains:

• Men are 32 times more likely to sexually abuse children
• 4% of males aren't just opportunistic abusers, but are specifically attracted to under‐10s.
• Men are nearly 3x more likely to work with children if they're sexually attracted to them
• Despite consistently being only around 3% of nursery workers, studies show that as far back as the 70s, men have committed the vast majority of sex abuses in nurseries, and the most extreme sex crimes.
• Currently the UK is not keeping data on the number of male (or female) nursery workers who are committing sexual abuse, or what their crimes are, so it's impossible to tell the scope of the issue in the UK at the current time.

Given all those things, I'm not sure why any person would be in favour of men working in nurseries. If 'male role models' are soooo important, then have DBS checked and supervised grandfather volunteers come in a few times a week like my children's kindergarten did, to read to them, bake a cake, do the dishes, teach them how to do woodwork, bring in animals, etc etc.

"The fact remains:

• Men are 32 times more likely to sexually abuse children
• 4% of males aren't just opportunistic abusers, but are specifically attracted to under‐10s.
• Men are nearly 3x more likely to work with children if they're sexually attracted to them
• Despite consistently being only around 3% of nursery workers, studies show that as far back as the 70s, men have committed the vast majority of sex abuses in nurseries, and the most extreme sex crimes.
• Currently the UK is not keeping data on the number of male (or female) nursery workers who are committing sexual abuse, or what their crimes are, so it's impossible to tell the scope of the issue in the UK at the current time."

The fact remains that banning all men from working in nurseries is illegal under uk discrimination rules so nurseries must place appropriate safeguarding in place.

Yes, and marital rape used to be legal too, as did slavery, while women voting used to be illegal, so I fail to see your point regarding legality. Are you trying to say that laws should never change?

eta: mammography discriminates against men, so clearly it is possible.

"Are you trying to say that laws should never change?

oH stop it with the straw man arguments. I said no such thing.

The fact It is not proportionate to ban all men from nurseries because a small proportion may be predators. Rigorous safeguarding would be needed anyway as there is still a smaller but non zero risk of women being predators so it is my opinion that this law is unlikely to change.

It's not a strawman. Why did you bring up legality, otherwise? What was your point?

And why is it proportionate to ban men from performing mammograms on adult women, but not to ban them from intimate care of nonverbal children?

"Why did you bring up legalality otherwise? What was your point?"

For someone emphasising facts, you ignored the one most pertinent one to this discussion.

What am I ignoring? Clearly, I think the law should be changed to ban males, as well as enhance safeguarding in other ways. I also think that if people put their children into nurseries, they should seek out ones without male workers to reduce the risk of sexual abuse. What about that is confusing you?

"Clearly, I think the law should be changed to ban males, as well as enhance safeguarding in other ways"

Ironic you chastised a poster for for focussing on opinions whilst ignoring facts and statistics but now your argument focuses on your opinion.

I am not confused by your opinion on discrimination laws; I just disagree that it will be changed.