plymouth nursery worker has pleaded guilty to sexual offences...

[wannaBe]

They've just announced on bbc that Vanessa George and two others (one man and one woman) have pleaded guilty to child sexual asalts and distribution of images.

calm down!
why not even retail workers have random searches.

anything to help prevent anything this happening again

Aprently it became a competition between Vanessa George and the other woman to see who could please the man involved more.

Some very complex issues going on here.

I don't undertand though how you "meet" someone though facebook - surely you only connect with people you already know.

"emotionally vulnerable" could just mean that she is distraught about having been caught and is threatening to harm herself

I feel like throwing up at this, it is one of the nastiest things I've ever heard

but I do wish people wouldn't compound the horror with thick ignorant crap about stocks/tying people up on the pavement/the death penalty

The particular aspect I find disturbing is that these three had never met in real life - this was an internet relationship that spiralled into a child abuse ring.

I cannot fathom what went on in the emails that started all this.

Those poor kids and George's poor kids.

We need to wake up to the fact that women can and do abuse.

"I don't undertand though how you "meet" someone though facebook - surely you only connect with people you already know." But the internet connects so many people. Look at how many people make "friends" on mumsnet. Email each other, have each other on their facebook pages, contribute if one or the other is in difficulty, send anonomous gifts in the Christmas appeal... and the list goes on. And all for people that they have never "met" in person but yet care about. It amounts to the same thing, although in this case obviously it was far more sinister.

What I don't understand is how people realize they have this in common. After all it's not something you bring up in conversation is it? So is there a secret code that only paedophiles know to identify them to each other? Or what?

I think banning mobile phones is a knee-jerk reaction. However no-one needs to have their mobile with them, and there are plenty of organizations that don't allow mobiles or certain types of mobiles. E.g. some government organizations such as parts of MOD don't allow camera phones/phones with internet access, neither do certain financial institutes i.e organizations with trading floors for example. Or prisons etc. The choice ultimately is that you either abide by the rules of the company, or you leave. Nobody needs to be talking on a mobile phone, and I imagine you could give a work number for emergencies.

I agree, nursery workiers don't need to have a mobile phone on them.

So if nurseries /playgroups etc where children are with out parents ban staff having mobile phones as it would be feared that indecent photos may be taken, when other policy & procedures can be implemneted that no one is ver alone with a child , just how would this be implemented with childminders etc .

Surely children at a childminders would be just at risk , even more so it could be argued - no mointoring who comes and goes to the house , access to camera phones , camera, computers and possibly strangers .

Why should phones be banned in nurseries but not in a priavte dwelling where a child care is ?

The argument that people are CRB checked goes totally out the window now with this George case .

If you ban phones from nurseries then a smilar approach has to be applied to all settings where children are cared for - impossible to do in someones house - so perhaps they will ban childminders ?

I don't think that phones should be banned in nurseries. What I was saying though was that it's not uncommon for phones to be banned and that people don't actually need to have a mobile phone on their person at work.

"Go the whole hog and have raids on childminders ! Not the early morning that police have but around 11am when settling down to have a mid morning cup of tea !"

Seriously tho, my kids go to a CM and it really scares me that she is alone with them and could be doing anything. BUT the vast majority of people do not have these sick tendencies - there has to be some trust or you'd never let your kids do anything.

I agree it is weird how they discovered each other were paedophiles - the news reports I have heard have said he did not coerce Vanessa George, that 'she is an adult making her own decisions' but also he and the other woman Allen were close to meeting up and that is when the George pics escalated. So there was some sense of his control over her going on IMO.

My DH is a solicitor and has had a few high-profile cases where what has come out in court and in the papers is only the tip of the iceberg compared to what actually happened. There is always other stuff going on that is not reported, stuff that often 'explains' behaviour that you would think is unexplainable iyswim.

We dont need mobile phones at all , we managed without them for years but it is a fact that 1 in 2 adults in uk have a mobile phone (Wikianswers).

A paedpohile in a park can take pictures of your kids with his /her phone - how do you police that ?

Someon watching at the swimmingg pool can take a phot of your child swimming with a phone without drawing too much attention to themselves - how do you police that ?

Someone in a car outside school gate innocently looking like they are talking on the phone can take pictures of your child coming out of school - how do you police that ?

As Neenz said there has to be an element of trust . as a child care worker I certainlty dont wnat to be branded as an 'abuser' becuase I have access to a m obile phone hence my objection to them being banned etc in a childcare setting .

but we're not just talking about people photographing children though are we?

There's a difference between someone who photographs a child coming out of school and someone who photographs themselves abusing a child.

I don't think that mobiles should be banned in childcare settings. Because IMO it wouldn't be enforceable esp with childminders/nannies, plus the worst thing was the abuse - the photographing of it was hideous, of course it was, but it's the fact she abused these children that is the real crime here, and even if she hadn't had a mobile phone to take pictures, she would likely still have abused them. We in fact don't know that she didn't.

I'm not sure what the solution is, or whether there even is one tbh. If you put measures in place to ensure that no childcarer is ever alone with children, then you surely have to do the same for childminders, nannies, teachers, etc, and that simply isn't workable.

I do wonder whether there will be any kind of enquiry into how this was allowed to happen in a setting where there were several other adults present. I.e. how was it that nobody noticed that this woman must have been spending an unusual amount of time alone with babies/toddlers. I know the other staff in the nursery are not directly to blame, but surely it's not wrong to ask the question?

That was my point. She must have needed a fair bit of time to set this up and how come no other staff noticed.

ALso - re mobile phones. Don't think they should be banned from nurseries but the staff shouldn't be allowed to have them while 'on duty'. Mainly because I would want the staff to be focussing on caring for my child. In fact I hope the staff at my dd's nursery aren't allowed for that very reason. Nothing to do with child abuse.

What I didnt realise was that some of her collegues had small children in the nursey so some of their children could also have been abused by a woman they worked with and trusted. I think she should be locked up for a considerable amount of time, she violated these tiny children so she should lose her freedom for a very very long time. Her sentence should be a benchmark for all child abusers sentences!!! For what she did she deserves life and should not get out until she is a very old woman.

Did anyone read her husband in the NOTW, I read it on line, and when he asked her why, and did she realise how serious it was she said "I'll get 4 years and serve 2".

That is what needs changing here not mobile phones.

Serious crime serious sentence, it just might make them think twice.

I expect she'll get more than 4 years and maybe and should get an indeterminate sentence due to her continuing risk to children. That could potentially mean she may never come out.

As a babyroom worker and a mother I can't even begin to describe sickens me, and confuses me - how on earth did she get the opportunity!? Why?! - it just doesn't make sense, but then I suppose that is how it is with paedophiles , but somehow harder to understand when it is a woman and a mother.

I think the death penalty would be too good for them. They should get a life sentence in a 'normal' prison - none of this being separated and protected! I'm sure thier fellow prisoners would treat them as they deserve. This society is twisted that we look after sex offenders how we do.

BUT mobile phones surely weren't the cause of this - it would make more sense to ban all childcare workers from using the internet, and how realiostic is that? - I could be wrong but wasn't the phone instrumental in her capture and conviction? I used to keep my phone with me at work after my 5 year old had an bad accident at school and the message didn't get through the system at work. Now I usually choose to leave it in the office to avoid worrying parents and then I worry all day about the same thing happening again with my dd. Surely a better system would be to give nursery managers the right to spot check all mobile phones - photos and all, or for phones to be kept together on a shelf within staff hearing distance, and to reinforce the idea of staff being supervised at all times.

I haven't read all the thread but like all others on here I can't even begin to understand how a woman can involve themselves in this kind of activity. I know that children who are sexually abused very often turn from victims to perpetrators and this is true for women as well as men. It is not easy to understand by any stretch of the imagination but I am well aware that it happens in some cases.

Obviously we don't know the background of Vanessa George. We do know however that paedophiles are predatory and will actually seek out ways where they can be in contact with children. the profile is usually that they will be involved in a variety of different ways with children, volunteering in clubs and societies andy anywhere where they have access to children. I wonder if this is why VG became a nursery worker and that can't be ruled out at this stage.

However my own view for what it's worth is that it was more to do with her r/ship with the male paedophile involved and I have read on one post here that VG and the other woman involved were competing with each other to please this man and give him what he wanted. There have been other cases in history where women have become so infatuated with men that they have been prepared to murder and/or be involved in other forms of child cruelty. Please be assured I am not trying to excuse women who are so involved but I am desperately trying to form some understanding of these terrible crimes comitted by women. I don't understand male paedophiles either but as a woman myself it feels so much worse that it is a woman who was involved.

I don't think banning mobile phones or anything similar will do any good nor supervising staff at all times etc etc. My own grandchildren are in nursery so I share all the concerns of the parents on here but I think that while ever there are people out there who are so depraved that risk will never be entirely eliminated.

She is in a prison only a couple of miles from my house. I'm so wanting to ask my neighbour what they are doing to her in jail (she works there), but she is bound by the data protection act.
It is a tough prison, she is in hell, somebody give her a piece of rope.

"This society is twisted that we look after sex offenders how we do."

I think it would be very twisted to let other people exact vicious and heinous revenge on sex offenders etc.

That would make society as messed up as these individuals.

I'm sure VG is getting a terrible time in prison - apparently paedophiles are regarded as the lowest of the low in prison apart from corrupt policemen - but I don't think I can be particularly glad about it.

I'm very very glad however, the abuse has been stopped.

I would be even more glad if we could find out how to i). prevent paedophiles from becoming paedophiles and ii). to protect our children from existing in a reasonable and effective way.

Because that's what everyone wants, isn't it? For the abuse never to happen again. But it will, over and over, however rare, until something changes in our approach. I don't think wishing hell on someone in prison is going to stop the abuse and that's where energies should be focused.

But I know I'm preaching to the converted...... and sorry if I sound preachy.

existing paedophiles, I mean.

Winkywola - no you don't sound preachy at all - you sound very rational and sane and a good antidote to Ripeberry. There is no way that anyone knows exactly which prison a person is in unless the friend has already told her in which case she has seriously breached confidentiality. I hate that notion of people revelling in how awful someone is being treated in prison. I'm sure VG will suffer for the rest of her life and that may be deserved.

It is widely known in the Media, there is only one women's prison in this county.
Other women are locked up in hell holes for much lesser crimes, save your sympathies for them.
Other people are born into hell and they never did anyone any harm.
What is this thread now...hug a paedo?

Sorry Ripeberry but you are absolutely wrong. There is enormous secrecy (quite rightly in my view) about the allocation of prisons and specific individuals. If you believe everything you read in the media there is small wonder that your views are so misinformed. You sound like a Sun reader!

Prisons are not "hell holes" in any event and nor should they be. VG will be being kept in isolation for her own protection and this is how it should be, though of course you are probably one of those people who believe in "mob rule" As for "hug a paedo" well I'm not sure why I am responding to you really as you are clearly not someone who has a very rational frame of mind and is able to misinterpret the views of others to suit your own beliefs. For the record I habve not suggested that I am in any sense sympathising with VG - I am simply trying to gain some understanding of what possesses people to behave in such depraved ways.

Hug a paedo? Eh? What a bizarre post.

Nobody has expressed any sympathy for VG at all.

"I know that children who are sexually abused very often turn from victims to perpetrators and this is true for women as well as men. It is not easy to
understand by any stretch of the imagination but I am well aware that it happens in some cases."

"However my own view for what it's worth is that it was more to do with her r/ship with the male paedophile involved and I have read on one post here that
VG and the other woman involved were competing with each other to please this man and give him what he wanted. There have been other cases in history where
women have become so infatuated with men that they have been prepared to murder and/or be involved in other forms of child cruelty."

IMO by placing the burden of guilt on someone else, i.e the man in this case, people are diminishing what VG has done. It's not good enough to say that "I'm not justifying her actions, but..." as soon as the "but" enters the equasion people are going some way towards justifying what she did. And there is no justification.

Many, many children are abused, and they don't grow up to be paedophiles.

Many men who beat their wives have witnessed their own mothers being beaten by their fathers, but we don't hold this up as a justification as to why men do it. So why should this be any different.

Vanessa George is an adult. She is able to make her own decisions, and regardless of who she was pleasing, she made conscious decisions to abuse young children in her care. She has pleaded guilty to her crimes. She doesn't seem to have shown any remorse for her crimes. She has, according to her husband, said that she'll be out in two years and doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact she's in jail. And more importantly than anything, she has refused to cooperate with the police and will not tell them which children she has abused. So those parents will never know. The thousands of parents who have placed their children in her care over the years will for ever be left wondering if she abused their children.

I don't agree with the death penalty or vigilanti justice. I believe that when she has served her time she should have a new identity to protect her from that. But I equally don't think that there is any justification for what she did.

I think on some levels that people are trying to place the burden of responsibility on to the man because they don't want to believe that a woman could be capable of doing these things without male influence. But she made her own decisions. There are evil women out there. Myra hindley, Rose west...