No System Is Ever 100% Safe

The screaming headline in this ‘Indy’ report is ‘Flawed Vetting System That Allowed An Abuser To Slip Through The Net’.

Sadly, the headline is totally inaccurate, when you look at the contents of the article:

It is the responsibility of the nursery owner – be it an individual, a charity or local authority – to ensure that CRB checks are made.

Ofsted carries out further assessments to make sure adequate background and employment histories of staff have been obtained.

Yet criminals such as Vanessa George, who had worked for six years as a classroom assistant without raising suspicion, can slip through the net.

How, exactly, did she ‘slip through the net’? Was she not checked? Was the check inadequate?

Yes, she was checked. And at the time, the check did the job it was supposed to do:

Tricia Pritchard, of the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses, said the overwhelming majority of carers, most of whom are paid the minimum wage, were committed to providing a safe environment for their pupils. But she admitted there was little that could be done to stop a determined abuser.

"Like any of these checks they are only any good on the day they are made," she said yesterday.

"Someone might be clear on paper, but this might mean they have just never been caught. With all of these things if someone is committed to carrying out these offences they will do so regardless."

Exactly.

She was a ‘clean skin’, recruited after the fact of her employment by a man skilled in manipulating others and who brought out a weakness in her character that had probably been hidden from even herself.

No vetting system would ever have caught her – she ‘slipped through the net’ along with all the other fish not a target of that net, because at the time, that’s what she was.

And now, in a vain bid to be seen to be doing something, we can expect more bans on the tools used by the people involved:

One further safeguard that is almost certain to gain support now is the call for mobile phones to be banned in some nursery areas.

"Mobile phone [technology has] moved on so quickly," Ms Pritchard added. "They are so small you can hold them in the palm of your hand and they have very powerful cameras, which means you can get pictures on to the internet within minutes."

And if the next one doesn’t want to take pictures? What then?

While Ofsted insists that nurseries operate with an adequate child-to-staff ratio and policies to ensure a pupil's dignity, there will always be times when a member of staff might be alone with a child, such as changing their nappy or giving potty training.

Unless parents are prepared to pay for massive overmanning in nurseries, this is unavoidable. And when the next case happens, and it's two childminders together, what then?

And as for this load of old wibble:

Although Ofsted has the ability to close a nursery that does not meet its criteria, Ms Pritchard claimed that the watchdog rarely did so. She said: "Most professionals would agree that Ofsted's powers are not strong enough and we don't feel inspections are rigorous enough. There is such a demand for places it is often in no one's interest to close a nursery down. While they might slap a notice on somewhere, it is always the last resort to shut it."

This wasn’t a case where there had been complaints about the nursery, or rumours, or representations to Ofsted. The parents were all apparently happy with the care, and happy with George to.

This case came like a bolt out of the blue – it resulted from police action on a person that at the time they believed was unconnected with the nursery. In fact, he first time he ever met George in the flesh was in court.

So how the hell can giving more powers to Ofsted to inspect and close down nurseries help? What ‘inspections’ could have prevented this?

None. But no-one wants to hear that.