Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
Page 2 of 17 • Share
Page 2 of 17 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
Juggle kids around as much as you like, add or subtract as many as you like but fact remains - Catriona Baker had charge of a maximum of seven children, mixed sexes, at any one session. Even then according to the records, six/seven children only on one or two half days. Mostly there were only three, four or five children signed in.
If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker.
If Catriona Baker had difficulty identifying a handful of children, then she most certainly shouldn't be employed as a childcare worker.
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex moderator
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
Phoebe wrote:On the afternoon of May 3rd Madeleine was, according to creche records, the SOLE girl remaining in the Lobsters group for the last hour of the session. She also was the SOLE girl from Lobsters who needed to be brought to high tea when session ended.
There were ONLY two other little boys with her, A.M. and W.T., a total of 3 children. Cat Baker claimed to be minding these three during this period. If this were true I see no opportunity for mistaken identity.
Earlier that day, Cat had charge of just two other girls besides Madeleine - Ella and J.B. with only 3 other boys. Furthermore, Madeleine is claimed to have drawn attention to herself by her panic at the sail. So, Madeleine was either definitely in creche on Thursday or Cat is not telling the truth. I opt for the latter.
I believe Cat was not there on Thurs. She makes a mess of describing the "mini sail" (which bears no resemblance to reality) recounting the three year olds being brought out onto the high seas by a "launch boat", when a mini sail actually involves the children stepping aboard a plastic boat drawn up on the beach which is then pushed about in waist deep water!
I firmly believe the creche (in May 07) was shambolic, a fact that has been diligently covered up to save M.W. blushes. There was no accurate record keeping, nor evidence of identity bracelets, I think the nannies secretly chopped and changed rotas and combined groups to give each other time off. I also believe creche records were hastily filled and forged retrospectively to try to hide this. Furthermore, it appears that there was some contact between the nannies and the McCann group after the disappearance. For me this is evidenced by Amy Tierney. On the night of the disappearance the searchers were looking for a child who had wandered out from the apt. and got lost. John Hill said so, Mark McCarrick claimed, early next morning, to have been told by Ocean Club staff that a door had been left open. It was Amy who informed Lyndsay Johnston that night that Madeleine was missing. She in turn relayed this information to Hill. However, Hill made no reference to the open window and raised blinds which Amy stresses twice in her statement given three days after the disappearance. Why would he persist in assuming that Madeleine woke and wandered if he had immediately been informed about the open window and raised shutters? I believe that Cat was contacted by the McCanns and supported their story to save her own reputation.
I also believe Madeleine hated creche and, on Monday, acted up so badly she had to be collected after 15 mins. I imagine Cat would have been only too grateful if the McCanns suggested there was no reason to mention any of this. I can imagine how relieved I would feel if parents of an "abducted" child (splashed all over the news) offered not to mention that the child disliked me and or had said she was afraid of me!
One has to remember that Catriona does NOT claim to have seen Maddie at 'high tea' (from anything I have found...)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Emma Wilding was the other nanny in the same creche room. She does not remember seeing Maddie in a trip they all took to the beach
Emma Wilding Sharks grou wrote:Emma Louise Wilding -working at the Mini Club for children between 3-5 years
on Wednesday May 2, her group and Madeleine’s group went to the beach, but she is not sure if Madeleine was in the group or not,
May 3 Madeleine was at the Mini Club, but she does not remember at what time she arrived, and if on that day Madeleine accompanied the other children at 1645 as was customary.
She is also not sure whether her parents joined her during the snack, as was customary.
Catriona was very vague about Madeleine and seemed to focus a lot on the TWINS (who were not in her group)
Catriona Rogatory wrote:I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information. I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with E***, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would drop Madeleine off with greater frequency than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon.
Most of the time in which I saw the family together, the children would be eating. The twins appeared tired at lunch, after a long day and also perhaps due to the heat, but I never became preoccupied by the children of by the comportment of the McCanns.
I never saw Kate or Gerry in a car in Portugal. I visited the family in their home at their invitation to see how they were getting along in November of 2007. That was the first time I saw them in a car.
On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.
Is it possible Catriona was describing Ella? If both children were at mini sail, I would suggest its more likely Ella that would be scared and fearful. I can't imagine Maddie would be scared with no mention that Ella was scared also.
Catriona Rogatory wrote:I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing.
She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared." We only used the launches to transport the children to the small yellow boats. When we returned to the other boat she was happy again. She sailed in the small boat and even though some children had the opportunity to return to the port, she stayed for a second time as she appeared to be having a good time.
I would like to continue to add that this is considered a possibility which supports something happening earlier and according to the research from the files that I have put together in amny other threads creating the 'big picture'
I am looking for input as the research isin progress and appreciate your comments.
I am NOT claiming this is what happened, only that it is a good explanation of a POSSIBILITY it could have happened in a similar way
The similarity between Maddie and Jane Tanners daughter is something to keep in mind (and their different personalities)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
Interesting to note the findings of BBC Whistleblower program that happened 2 weeks prior to the McCanns arriving in PdL. (MW Egypt used in the program)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
One thing that's always struck me about the holiday is how confusing it all is. The comings and goings of the McCann family as so convoluted, compared to my own experience holidaying as the eldest of four. We all did things together. We all went to the same places at the same time. Certainly if all the children went to a play centre, we would all be picked up by the same parent, at the same time. Anything else is just not practical. I think it's pretty clear that either this is not what happened at all, or the family were so disjointed that they hardly spent any time together, indicating other problems .
nglfi- Posts : 568
Activity : 866
Likes received : 274
Join date : 2014-01-09
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
nglfi wrote:One thing that's always struck me about the holiday is how confusing it all is. The comings and goings of the McCann family as so convoluted, compared to my own experience holidaying as the eldest of four. We all did things together. We all went to the same places at the same time. Certainly if all the children went to a play centre, we would all be picked up by the same parent, at the same time. Anything else is just not practical. I think it's pretty clear that either this is not what happened at all, or the family were so disjointed that they hardly spent any time together, indicating other problems .
IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, as the DISCREPANCIES started Tuesday morning, it appeared confusing because of the contradictions of probably trying to cover up the truth
What we are 'told' about the truth is not necessarily what actually happened, hence I spent a few years compiling all the statements into timelines and timetables for comparison. Hence I discovered the discrepancies.
Remembering Madeleine McCann Research Forum
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
"Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning..... On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim......"
"This afternoon we went swimming....."
."She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."
Ella had just undergone surgery following a cut on her foot which had turned septic. There were even doubts as to whether she would be able for the holiday. If true (and it was easy to verify) there is no way she would have been permitted contact with pool water (or indeed the sea water). Therefore I cannot conceive of Ella replacing Madeleine in any of these activities. Cat clearly implies that Madeleine did attend creche every day "Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine EVERY day in the morning." Therefore she is clearly claiming to have seen her on the morning of May 3rd. As Verdi has pointed out, with so few charges it is impossible to not have learned the child's name if the tale re how the childminding operated is true. Either Cat is knowingly lying about Madeleine's presence in creche or the childminding was so slapdash that Cat hasn't a clue who was where, and she may not even have been there at the appointed times herself but foisted her charges onto another nanny and is lying to cover this up
"This afternoon we went swimming....."
."She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."
Ella had just undergone surgery following a cut on her foot which had turned septic. There were even doubts as to whether she would be able for the holiday. If true (and it was easy to verify) there is no way she would have been permitted contact with pool water (or indeed the sea water). Therefore I cannot conceive of Ella replacing Madeleine in any of these activities. Cat clearly implies that Madeleine did attend creche every day "Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine EVERY day in the morning." Therefore she is clearly claiming to have seen her on the morning of May 3rd. As Verdi has pointed out, with so few charges it is impossible to not have learned the child's name if the tale re how the childminding operated is true. Either Cat is knowingly lying about Madeleine's presence in creche or the childminding was so slapdash that Cat hasn't a clue who was where, and she may not even have been there at the appointed times herself but foisted her charges onto another nanny and is lying to cover this up
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
I just wanted to say you make some excellent points above. Like you, Phoebe I do not think CB was working on Thursday. This is purely speculative but I noted that if CB had been working on Thursday it suggests to me she worked a six day week and I think this is unlikely. I definitely think the working practices and contracts for MW nannies warrants further scrutiny.
I noted also that the twins' nanny had Thursday off and I agree Phoebe that CB's description of the mini sail does not sound plausible IMO and I cannot for the life of me understand why the McCanns would be watching other people's children playing tennis whilst showing no interest in what surely should have been a milestone in their own child's life worthy of attention?
I noted also that the twins' nanny had Thursday off and I agree Phoebe that CB's description of the mini sail does not sound plausible IMO and I cannot for the life of me understand why the McCanns would be watching other people's children playing tennis whilst showing no interest in what surely should have been a milestone in their own child's life worthy of attention?
Crackfox- Posts : 111
Activity : 162
Likes received : 51
Join date : 2018-01-12
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Category: Factual & Arts TV; BBC One
Date: 05.03.2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Printable version
Whistleblower, BBC One's flagship undercover series, will tonight (Wednesday 5 March, 8.00pm) lift the lid on how nurseries are putting children at serious risk by failing to check both the criminal records and references of staff employed to work with very young children – and the failure of Ofsted to police this.
In an exclusive interview given to the programme on condition that her identity was protected, a current Ofsted inspector alleges that Ofsted – the official body responsible for inspecting and regulating nurseries and childminders in the UK – is approving childcare facilities that should not be operating.
Ofsted inspector: "I am a mother of two young children and many of my colleagues have young children. Between us, I would say we would inspect roughly 700 crèches, nurseries, after-school clubs and childminders and there wasn't more than five that we would take our own children to."
Following the tip-off from the Ofsted inspector, BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks began an eight-month undercover investigation, during which she discovered that Ofsted is not only failing to adequately regulate the childcare industry in order to protect pre-school children in nurseries and in the care of childminders, but that political connections could have influenced Ofsted's decisions.
The programme uncovers Ofsted documents that indicate that the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne should have been closed following the accidental death of a child in its care and critical inspection reports, but was saved from closure due to concerns about the implications for Michael Fallon MP. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, was the Managing Director of the nursery at the time and the documents state:
"If we cancel this particular setting then there are implications for Michael Fallon, as he would be automatically disqualified."
Viewers will be shocked to see how Imogen Willcocks, a 21-year-old undercover BBC journalist with no experience of looking after children and no professional qualifications, is employed to look after young children under the age of five by two nurseries in Britain, and a leading British holiday company. Furthermore, they will see her approved as a registered childminder by Ofsted.
Imogen's undercover filming takes place at Just Learning in Cambourne (near Cambridge) and Buttons nursery in west London, as well as a Mark Warner holiday resort in Dahab, Egypt – an upmarket company that markets itself as offering "award-winning childcare".
The undercover footage in the programme reveals:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] A failure to make criminal record and reference checks – The companies that featured in the programme all employed Imogen to look after young children without obtaining CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks, or speaking to any of her referees.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult tochild ratios were not always met – on several occasions at Buttons nursery, Imogen is seen left in sole charge of up to 13 pre-school children. At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is and, on one occasion at Just Learning, Imogen and another member of staff are left caring for 23 children. This was despite complaints from members of staff concerned about child welfare and safety.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions – the undercover BBC reporter discovered, for example, potential choking hazards in the sandpit at Just Learning (which she removed and disposed of). At Buttons nursery she found pieces of glass in the garden and witnessed maintenance work, involving power tools, being carried out whilst the children were in the same room. At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Infrequent inspections – Ofsted fails to make frequent inspections of nurseries – with the Buttons nursery in west London having nearly four-and-a-half years between inspections.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegally low pay – BBC undercover journalist Imogen Willcocks earned £100 a week (about £2.50 an hour) whilst at Buttons nursery – well below the national minimum wage. Staff at Buttons nursery are discouraged from discussing their pay – the nursery manager told Imogen: "a couple of months ago, we called people out because they've been discussing wages. That's confidential, you mustn't do that."
Imogen's findings go some way towards understanding the Ofsted Whistleblower's comments in the programme:
"Ofsted reports are not worth the paper that they're printed on."
"Anybody can approach Ofsted, talk a good talk and really become registered [as a childminder]."
"I've taken a great risk talking to you but I don't believe, and many of my colleagues don't believe, that we protect children anymore."
"Inspectors will go out to undertake an inspection and are literally skimming the surface. We are told consistently and constantly: 'if you go in and you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Get in there, take a quick look and get out'. The No. 1 priority for all inspectors is to meet their targets, because if they don't then they are disciplined. So targets take priority over safeguarding of children."
The critical Ofsted report, following the inspection of Just Learning in Cambourne that occurred after 10-month-old Georgia Hollick died accidentally at the nursery in April 2006, found serious problems there. There was no criticism of the nursery at the inquest. Documents obtained by the programme show that Ofsted took into account the consequences the closure of the nursery and disqualification from running it could have on the then Managing Director when considering what action they should take. The Managing Director at the time was Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, who remains on the Board of Just Learning.
Since filming, the directors of Just Learning have written to parents announcing the closure of their Cambourne nursery following the Ofsted reports and the BBC's investigation, and have admitted that the BBC has made them aware of "a serious breach of recruitment policy last year".
Notes to Editors
1. BBC undercover reporters Imogen Willcocks and Ashley Kennedy were CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked by the BBC prior to their undercover work for the programme but none of the companies that feature in the programme were aware of this.
2. BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:
- Just Learning in Cambourne from 7 to 27 November 2007.
- Buttons nursery in west London from July to August 2007.
- Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.
3. A second undercover BBC reporter, Ashley Kennedy, followed up Imogen Willcock's findings by working undercover at Mark Warner's La Plagne ski resort, in France, for two days from 17 December 2007 to see if procedures had been tightened since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Portugal in May 2007. Again, she was employed by Mark Warner and working at the resort prior to her references and a CRB check being obtained.
4. On 18 February 2008, Jonathan Bell, the MD of Just Learning, wrote to parents announcing that the Cambourne nursery would close on Friday 29 February 2008. Quote from the letter: "You will be aware that the nursery recently received an "Inadequate" report from Ofsted. The directors of Just Learning have considered this and the increasing difficulty of recruiting staff against continuing media interest in the nursery. We have also been made aware, by the BBC, of a serious breach of recruitment policy last year involving a former member of staff. As a result of this, the nursery manager has resigned".
5. Mark Warner resorts are not required to work to Ofsted regulations.
6. Rights of Reply
Written statement from Michael Fallon MP in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"This is news to me, and a matter for Ofsted. I had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne. I resigned as managing director immediately afterwards. I strongly endorse the decision of the board to close the Cambourne nursery. The breach of the company's recruitment procedures was completely unacceptable."
Written statement from Buttons nursery in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"Buttons Day Nursery is a family-run nursery with a loyal following. Our aim is to provide a safe, happy and stimulating environment for our children. We try to foster trusting and supportive relationships between families and staff. The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"Buttons has regularly received favourable Ofsted inspection reports, one as recently as February, 2008.
"Buttons has a low staff turnover. New joiners undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
Written statement from Mark Warner in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"It's company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record. There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff.
"We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously. It is the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
"Guests who've been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is high.
"Eighty-nine out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. And every single one of our water sports instructors has a professional qualification."
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
Written statement from Just Learning in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery.
"The prescribed staff ratios should be maintained at our nurseries at all times and the company requires this. We do not condone any breaches the BBC has discovered.
"Choking hazards are very serious and any member of staff would be expected to be vigilant and to remove and dispose of them as well as raising awareness of other staff.
"The death of Georgia Hollick was the subject of a coroner's inquest. It did not find our first aid provision wanting – our staff did everything humanly possible to save Georgia's life. The company has expressed its regret and sympathy to Georgia's family. The health and safety investigation is still being carried out and we do not intend to comment upon it at present."
Written statement from Ofsted in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"Ofsted makes 70,000 visits a year to check children and young people are safe, healthy and happy. Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe.
"If Whistleblower has identified things that can be improved, we will want to consider them, including making recommendations to the government about possible future changes.
"Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job.
"Our policy of unannounced inspections keeps most nurseries and childminders on their toes.
"Parents have choices over where to place their children. Ofsted inspection reports are available on our website to help them.
"Childminders know a good report is important to their business. Where they don't improve, we take action."
We put to them our charge that they allowed Michael Fallon MP's position, as managing director of Just Learning, to influence their decision not to close the Cambourne nursery. They would not respond directly, but said: "Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour. Our reports are often critical of government initiatives. We make no apology for that."
[size=13]SB
[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The shocking truth behind daycare at nurseries and creches
By IMOGEN WILLCOCKS
Last updated at 08:10 06 March 2008
Britain's childcare industry is booming.
Every working day, more than a million parents drop off their precious little cargos at childminders and private nurseries.
All of them do it firm in the belief that those they trust with their babies are highly-qualified, strictly regulated and genuine, caring people.
Terrifyingly, they are wrong. During an eight-month investigation for the BBC1 investigative programme Whistleblower, I uncovered a childcare culture where a new carer's criminal records and references are never checked, yet they will immediately be left alone with young, vulnerable children.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Finding out the truth: Reporter Imogen Willcocks
I was initially alerted to the scandal by an inspector for Ofsted (the government agency that regulates childminders and nurseries). She said that, as a parent of two children and having inspected 700 nurseries with her colleagues, she had found only five that she would have let her own children attend.
She also said that Ofsted inspection reports - the only safeguards that parents have to go on when choosing a nursery - aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
"We are literally skimming the surface," she said.
"We are told constantly: "If you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Take a quick look and get out."
"The priority for all Ofsted inspectors is to meet their targets. If they don't, they are disciplined. Targets take priority over safeguarding children."
I decided to test these claims by going undercover and getting myself a job in a number of nurseries.
I thought I would encounter difficulties since I had no children and, apart from a couple of babysitting stints, no experience of looking after babies and toddlers.
Yet I needn't have worried. None of the nurseries with which I got jobs bothered to check my fake CV or fictitious references.
Even Ofsted, which at least checked my criminal record, registered me as a childminder despite the premises where I was looking after the children not being at all suitable.
My first job was at the Buttons nursery in Ealing, West London. We'd had a tip-off that its supervision of babies and toddlers was unacceptable.
After a cursory interview, I was appointed as a nursery assistant. No one checked my references in the five weeks I was there and even though the law states that everyone working with children has to have their background checked by Home Office agency the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the all-clear didn't come back until I had left.
Buttons is based in a rambling, 19th-century detached house and caters to the area's professional middle classes. It was not cheap, charging £1,100 a month for a child who is dropped off at 8am and collected at 6pm.
On my first day, I was terrified - partly afraid that my secret filming equipment would be discovered, but mostly because apart from a quick nappychanging lesson with a friend's baby, I had no clue how to look after children.
As it turned out, no one noticed my inexperience.
At 21, I was one of the oldest nursery assistants.
Many were trainees and had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. There was no on-the-job training. Instead, we were thrown in at the deep end.
At times I was on my own with as many as 13 children, even though the law says carers waiting for their CRB clearance should always be closely supervised at all times.
And they shouldn't be allowed to change nappies and take children to the toilet.
With so many children to look after, I could barely make sure they were safe, let alone care for them individually. Instead, it was just damage limitation - I found myself grabbing broken glass, sticks and sharp objects from children as young as three.
One day, builders were brought in to fit guards to the radiators because one little boy - weeks earlier - had badly burnt his hand on one.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Undercover: Imogen Willcocks is seen with children in this footage
The other staff told me that the owner, Satnam Parhar, had blamed the staff for not supervising the burned boy properly and that he was only getting the guards fitted because an Ofsted inspection was due.
The builders left their power tools inches away from where the children were playing and no one seemed to notice.
I spent that particular session on tenterhooks.
The nursery assistants at Buttons were poorly supervised and very poorly paid. I was on about £100 a week - less than the legal minimum wage. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the staff were less than high-quality carers.
I saw two nursery assistants hauling a boy across the nursery by his arm. Then I heard a child being called a "sh*t-bag" and saw a little girl's head being shoved into a mattress on the floor as she didn't want to go.
When I complained to the owner that I had been left on my own with 13 children, he refused to accept what I was saying and called the idea crazy.
When I contacted him later, saying I had been undercover for a TV programme, he issued a statement.
"The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"New joiners to our staff undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
My next childcare job took me to a nursery with the worst possible history.
In April 2006, a ten-month-old girl called Georgia Hollick had choked to death on a slice of apple at the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire.
The inquest found that her death was accidental and made no criticism of the nursery.
However, a subsequent investigation by Ofsted found that children's health and safety were being compromised at the nursery.
Nevertheless, it was allowed to reopen less than a month after her death. Just
One day, I had to stop babies eating - and potentially choking on - small Christmas decorations that a member of staff had placed in the sandpit.
It was unbelievable that just 19 months after a baby choked to death at this nursery, such chances were still being taken with child safety.
Within days of the result of my investigation being put to them, Just Learning closed the Cambourne nursery and issued a statement saying: "The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery."
But this still left the question of why such a failing nursery had previously survived a very critical Ofsted report following the death of a young child in its care.
The BBC has been given an internal Ofsted document that refers to the Tory MP Michael Fallon, who was managing director of Just Learning at the time of Georgia Hollick's death.
A passage says: "If we cancel this particular setting [nursery] then there are implications for Michael Fallon as he would be automatically disqualified [from running it]."
Mr Fallon has since responded, saying: "This is news for me and a matter for Ofsted. I have had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne.
"I resigned as MD immediately afterwards.
"I strongly endorse the decision of the Board to close the nursery. The breach of the company's procedures was completely unacceptable."
After these two nurseries, I decided to investigate the self-styled upper end of the child-minding business, where I soon realised that the problems are not confined to our own shores.
Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.
It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.
That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.
Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."
This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.
Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.
Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.
Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.
No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.
To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.
Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.
Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.
He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.
"There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise.
"We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures."
For the final part of my investigation, I discovered that even an inexperienced 21-year old with no qualifications can also fool Ofsted.
I borrowed a large house, made no alterations to accommodate young children - despite the fact that no youngster had lived there for 20 years - and applied for a childminder's licence.
I admitted to the Ofsted inspector who visited that I had no fireguard, no first aid kit, no stairgates, no safety glass or socket covers. I didn't even have a table for the children to sit at.
The building was completely unsuitable.
But I did say I had a wish-list containing all those items and planned to install them. That was enough for the inspector and I got the go-ahead.
No one ever came back to check up that I had put them in place.
When contacted, Ofsted said in a statement that it would consider making improvements based on the findings that I had uncovered.
But it said: "Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe. Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job. Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour."
I don't yet have children but having seen what I've seen, I can't imagine I'll ever risk putting my own into childcare.
? WHISTLEBLOWER is on BBC1 tonight at 8pm.
Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whistleblower: Full responses
12 March 2008, 4:07pm
The nurseries and organisations included in the Whistleblower expose on bad practice in the early years sector have been quick to respond to the programme's accusations. We have printed their statements in full.
MARK WARNER RESPONSE
It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and that we complete and submit a form to check their criminal record.
From the information given to us by the BBC ahead of the programme, there were clearly two occasions when we failed to do this.
That is completely unacceptable and we apologise for this. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff so this does not happen again.
We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously.
That's why we were one of the first holiday companies in the UK to introduce criminal record checks for childcare staff, even though this has never been a legal requirement for staff working overseas.
It is also the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
We recognised that it wasn't possible to provide room listening and guarantee that there would never be any safety or security issues of any kind. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and switched to drop in crèches.
Guests who have been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is very high.
89 out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. The other four have proven childcare experience. And every single one of our watersports instructors have a professional qualification.
Over the past 25 years, we have taken over 150,000 families on holiday and won several awards for the quality of our service. We are determined to maintain that record.
Questions & Answers to issues raised in the BBC programme "Whistleblower" broadcast on March 5th 2008.
Q1. What is your reaction to the BBC Whistleblower programme?
A1. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, we let our customers down by failing to properly follow our established procedures for obtaining references before staff started working for us. That shouldn't have happened and we apologise for this. As a result, we have reviewed and strengthened our procedures for recruiting childcare staff, to stop this ever happening again.
Q2. What is your procedure for vetting childcare staff and how have you strengthened it following this programme?
A2. Prospective childcare staff must provide two references and, where relevant, original professional childcare qualification certificates before being offered a job. They must also provide personal information to enable us to submit a Criminal Bureau check. The two incidents highlighted by the BBC show that these procedures were not followed and so we have retrained our recruitment staff to ensure that this does not happen again.
Q3. Why did you let staff begin work without having received their CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) forms back?
A3. There is no legal requirement for any holiday company operating overseas to obtain a CRB check for their staff and the majority don't. These checks are required in other sectors, like the NHS and teaching, for staff who work with children. However, at Mark Warner, we decided five yeras ago to voluntarily introduce these checks for our nannies and we were one of the first holiday companies to do so. Unfortunately, we have no control over the length of time it takes for the check to be run and sent back to us. We would like the process to be quicker, but even companies and organisations legally required to run CRB checks face the same problem.
Q4. Your room listening service was criticised in the programme. What's your response to that?
A4. Our room listening service has always been very popular with guests. Unfortunately we stopped offering this service in 2007 because it was impossible to provide room listening and guarantee guests that there would never be any safety or security issues. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and replaced room listening with supervised evening crèche facilities at all our resorts.
Q5. The programme suggested that your nannies don't receive any training.
A5. To be able to join Mark Warner, all prospective childcare staff must already have a professional childcare qualification - such as an NNEB or NVQ - or a proven track record of working with children. After they start work, all childcare staff follow an induction programme which takes them through our own internal procedures such as fire and evacuation; lost child procedures; health & hygiene, as well as an explanation of their specific role and responsibilities.
Q.6 The programme suggested that children taking part in watersports aren't always supervised by staff who are competent in the water.
A.6 When children are involved in any beachfront activity, our professionally qualified watersports staff are responsible for their safety. In a typical summer, we employ over 200 of these staff and every single one has a qualification in watersports and life saving. Their qualifications are from internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the Royal Yachting Association and British Water Ski Federation.
Q.7 The programme suggested that your childcare is not "award winning". What is your response to that?
A.7 We have consistently received very high ratings from guests for the standard of childcare at our resorts. We have won an award from the children's baby charity Tommys for "Most Parent Friendly Tour Operator" as well as an award from Babygoes2.com and Ace Magazine awarded us a "Best for Families" award three years on the run for our resort - Lakitira in Greece.
Q.8 The programme mentioned the ratio of nannies to children. What is the ratio of nannies to children at your resorts?
A.8 In the UK, the Government's "Sure Start" guidelines on childcare state that the ratio should be one nanny to three Under 2's, one nanny to four 2 year olds and one nanny to eight 3 to 7 year olds. At Mark Warner, we not only comply with these ratios but, in some cases, better them.
Q.9 The programme claimed that staff in your resort in Egypt are working illegally and Mark Warner is therefore breaking the law?
A.9 The process of securing a work visa for staff in Egypt is lengthy and can take eight to nine months. We work closely with the Ministry of Labour to secure working visas for staff and the Egyptian authorities are aware that staff have to wait for their working visas to be processed.
Q.10 The programme was critical of Mark Warner, so what reassurance can you now offer to customers?
A.10 Over the past 25 years, we've taken hundreds of thousands of families on holiday. We've built our business on offering parents high quality childcare and a choice of first class resorts, with many guests writing to us each year to compliment us on the services we provided. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, the correct procedures for vetting and employing staff weren't followed. This is why we have already retrained staff and put in place measures to stop this happening again. We'd like to reassure customers that the safety, security and enjoyment of their holidays is our number one priority and always will be
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Press ReleasesOfsted Whistleblower reveals widespread failings in the care of the under-fives |
Category: Factual & Arts TV; BBC One
Date: 05.03.2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Printable version
Whistleblower, BBC One's flagship undercover series, will tonight (Wednesday 5 March, 8.00pm) lift the lid on how nurseries are putting children at serious risk by failing to check both the criminal records and references of staff employed to work with very young children – and the failure of Ofsted to police this.
In an exclusive interview given to the programme on condition that her identity was protected, a current Ofsted inspector alleges that Ofsted – the official body responsible for inspecting and regulating nurseries and childminders in the UK – is approving childcare facilities that should not be operating.
Ofsted inspector: "I am a mother of two young children and many of my colleagues have young children. Between us, I would say we would inspect roughly 700 crèches, nurseries, after-school clubs and childminders and there wasn't more than five that we would take our own children to."
Following the tip-off from the Ofsted inspector, BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks began an eight-month undercover investigation, during which she discovered that Ofsted is not only failing to adequately regulate the childcare industry in order to protect pre-school children in nurseries and in the care of childminders, but that political connections could have influenced Ofsted's decisions.
The programme uncovers Ofsted documents that indicate that the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne should have been closed following the accidental death of a child in its care and critical inspection reports, but was saved from closure due to concerns about the implications for Michael Fallon MP. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, was the Managing Director of the nursery at the time and the documents state:
"If we cancel this particular setting then there are implications for Michael Fallon, as he would be automatically disqualified."
Viewers will be shocked to see how Imogen Willcocks, a 21-year-old undercover BBC journalist with no experience of looking after children and no professional qualifications, is employed to look after young children under the age of five by two nurseries in Britain, and a leading British holiday company. Furthermore, they will see her approved as a registered childminder by Ofsted.
Imogen's undercover filming takes place at Just Learning in Cambourne (near Cambridge) and Buttons nursery in west London, as well as a Mark Warner holiday resort in Dahab, Egypt – an upmarket company that markets itself as offering "award-winning childcare".
The undercover footage in the programme reveals:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] A failure to make criminal record and reference checks – The companies that featured in the programme all employed Imogen to look after young children without obtaining CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks, or speaking to any of her referees.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Adult to child ratios are not met – The required adult tochild ratios were not always met – on several occasions at Buttons nursery, Imogen is seen left in sole charge of up to 13 pre-school children. At Mark Warner, an extra child arrives at the crèche but no one knows who she is and, on one occasion at Just Learning, Imogen and another member of staff are left caring for 23 children. This was despite complaints from members of staff concerned about child welfare and safety.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Health & Safety compromised – The BBC reporter was given no practical training to ensure that she could deal with emergency situations whilst looking after the children. And the health and safety of the children was compromised on a number of occasions – the undercover BBC reporter discovered, for example, potential choking hazards in the sandpit at Just Learning (which she removed and disposed of). At Buttons nursery she found pieces of glass in the garden and witnessed maintenance work, involving power tools, being carried out whilst the children were in the same room. At Mark Warner, the BBC reporter was asked to accompany and supervise young children on a sailing trip without enough safety helmets for all the children, and take young children into the water without any assessment of her swimming ability. Also, at the Mark Warner resort in Egypt, a room listening service designed to check on children every 30 minutes whilst their parents are out, was found to be inappropriate because the staff could only listen at the door – they couldn't see if the children were all right or go into the rooms. Indeed, a Mark Warner nanny told the BBC undercover journalist that before the journalist arrived in April 07, a girl under the age of five had escaped through the window of a room and was found wandering around the complex within metres of the pool.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] No training – No or negligible training was given to the undercover BBC reporter in any of her jobs. This is despite the fact that Mark Warner, for example, told her that she would receive training before starting the job.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegal working on tourist visas – Mark Warner employees at the resort were found working illegally on tourist visas because, according to one member of staff, Mark Warner are "too cheap to cough up and pay for [work] visas".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Infrequent inspections – Ofsted fails to make frequent inspections of nurseries – with the Buttons nursery in west London having nearly four-and-a-half years between inspections.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Illegally low pay – BBC undercover journalist Imogen Willcocks earned £100 a week (about £2.50 an hour) whilst at Buttons nursery – well below the national minimum wage. Staff at Buttons nursery are discouraged from discussing their pay – the nursery manager told Imogen: "a couple of months ago, we called people out because they've been discussing wages. That's confidential, you mustn't do that."
Imogen's findings go some way towards understanding the Ofsted Whistleblower's comments in the programme:
"Ofsted reports are not worth the paper that they're printed on."
"Anybody can approach Ofsted, talk a good talk and really become registered [as a childminder]."
"I've taken a great risk talking to you but I don't believe, and many of my colleagues don't believe, that we protect children anymore."
"Inspectors will go out to undertake an inspection and are literally skimming the surface. We are told consistently and constantly: 'if you go in and you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Get in there, take a quick look and get out'. The No. 1 priority for all inspectors is to meet their targets, because if they don't then they are disciplined. So targets take priority over safeguarding of children."
The critical Ofsted report, following the inspection of Just Learning in Cambourne that occurred after 10-month-old Georgia Hollick died accidentally at the nursery in April 2006, found serious problems there. There was no criticism of the nursery at the inquest. Documents obtained by the programme show that Ofsted took into account the consequences the closure of the nursery and disqualification from running it could have on the then Managing Director when considering what action they should take. The Managing Director at the time was Michael Fallon, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks, who remains on the Board of Just Learning.
Since filming, the directors of Just Learning have written to parents announcing the closure of their Cambourne nursery following the Ofsted reports and the BBC's investigation, and have admitted that the BBC has made them aware of "a serious breach of recruitment policy last year".
Notes to Editors
1. BBC undercover reporters Imogen Willcocks and Ashley Kennedy were CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checked by the BBC prior to their undercover work for the programme but none of the companies that feature in the programme were aware of this.
2. BBC undercover reporter Imogen Willcocks worked at:
- Just Learning in Cambourne from 7 to 27 November 2007.
- Buttons nursery in west London from July to August 2007.
- Mark Warner resort in Dahab, Egypt between 2 and 14 April 2007.
3. A second undercover BBC reporter, Ashley Kennedy, followed up Imogen Willcock's findings by working undercover at Mark Warner's La Plagne ski resort, in France, for two days from 17 December 2007 to see if procedures had been tightened since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Portugal in May 2007. Again, she was employed by Mark Warner and working at the resort prior to her references and a CRB check being obtained.
4. On 18 February 2008, Jonathan Bell, the MD of Just Learning, wrote to parents announcing that the Cambourne nursery would close on Friday 29 February 2008. Quote from the letter: "You will be aware that the nursery recently received an "Inadequate" report from Ofsted. The directors of Just Learning have considered this and the increasing difficulty of recruiting staff against continuing media interest in the nursery. We have also been made aware, by the BBC, of a serious breach of recruitment policy last year involving a former member of staff. As a result of this, the nursery manager has resigned".
5. Mark Warner resorts are not required to work to Ofsted regulations.
6. Rights of Reply
Written statement from Michael Fallon MP in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"This is news to me, and a matter for Ofsted. I had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne. I resigned as managing director immediately afterwards. I strongly endorse the decision of the board to close the Cambourne nursery. The breach of the company's recruitment procedures was completely unacceptable."
Written statement from Buttons nursery in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"Buttons Day Nursery is a family-run nursery with a loyal following. Our aim is to provide a safe, happy and stimulating environment for our children. We try to foster trusting and supportive relationships between families and staff. The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"Buttons has regularly received favourable Ofsted inspection reports, one as recently as February, 2008.
"Buttons has a low staff turnover. New joiners undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
Written statement from Mark Warner in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"It's company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record. There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff.
"We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously. It is the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
"Guests who've been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is high.
"Eighty-nine out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. And every single one of our water sports instructors has a professional qualification."
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
Written statement from Just Learning in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery.
"The prescribed staff ratios should be maintained at our nurseries at all times and the company requires this. We do not condone any breaches the BBC has discovered.
"Choking hazards are very serious and any member of staff would be expected to be vigilant and to remove and dispose of them as well as raising awareness of other staff.
"The death of Georgia Hollick was the subject of a coroner's inquest. It did not find our first aid provision wanting – our staff did everything humanly possible to save Georgia's life. The company has expressed its regret and sympathy to Georgia's family. The health and safety investigation is still being carried out and we do not intend to comment upon it at present."
Written statement from Ofsted in response to the findings in the BBC undercover investigation:
"Ofsted makes 70,000 visits a year to check children and young people are safe, healthy and happy. Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe.
"If Whistleblower has identified things that can be improved, we will want to consider them, including making recommendations to the government about possible future changes.
"Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job.
"Our policy of unannounced inspections keeps most nurseries and childminders on their toes.
"Parents have choices over where to place their children. Ofsted inspection reports are available on our website to help them.
"Childminders know a good report is important to their business. Where they don't improve, we take action."
We put to them our charge that they allowed Michael Fallon MP's position, as managing director of Just Learning, to influence their decision not to close the Cambourne nursery. They would not respond directly, but said: "Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour. Our reports are often critical of government initiatives. We make no apology for that."
[size=13]SB
[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The shocking truth behind daycare at nurseries and creches
By IMOGEN WILLCOCKS
Last updated at 08:10 06 March 2008
- Comments (0)
- Add to My Stories
Britain's childcare industry is booming.
Every working day, more than a million parents drop off their precious little cargos at childminders and private nurseries.
All of them do it firm in the belief that those they trust with their babies are highly-qualified, strictly regulated and genuine, caring people.
Terrifyingly, they are wrong. During an eight-month investigation for the BBC1 investigative programme Whistleblower, I uncovered a childcare culture where a new carer's criminal records and references are never checked, yet they will immediately be left alone with young, vulnerable children.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Finding out the truth: Reporter Imogen Willcocks
I was initially alerted to the scandal by an inspector for Ofsted (the government agency that regulates childminders and nurseries). She said that, as a parent of two children and having inspected 700 nurseries with her colleagues, she had found only five that she would have let her own children attend.
She also said that Ofsted inspection reports - the only safeguards that parents have to go on when choosing a nursery - aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
"We are literally skimming the surface," she said.
"We are told constantly: "If you don't see a problem, don't look for one. Take a quick look and get out."
"The priority for all Ofsted inspectors is to meet their targets. If they don't, they are disciplined. Targets take priority over safeguarding children."
I decided to test these claims by going undercover and getting myself a job in a number of nurseries.
I thought I would encounter difficulties since I had no children and, apart from a couple of babysitting stints, no experience of looking after babies and toddlers.
Yet I needn't have worried. None of the nurseries with which I got jobs bothered to check my fake CV or fictitious references.
Even Ofsted, which at least checked my criminal record, registered me as a childminder despite the premises where I was looking after the children not being at all suitable.
My first job was at the Buttons nursery in Ealing, West London. We'd had a tip-off that its supervision of babies and toddlers was unacceptable.
After a cursory interview, I was appointed as a nursery assistant. No one checked my references in the five weeks I was there and even though the law states that everyone working with children has to have their background checked by Home Office agency the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the all-clear didn't come back until I had left.
Buttons is based in a rambling, 19th-century detached house and caters to the area's professional middle classes. It was not cheap, charging £1,100 a month for a child who is dropped off at 8am and collected at 6pm.
On my first day, I was terrified - partly afraid that my secret filming equipment would be discovered, but mostly because apart from a quick nappychanging lesson with a friend's baby, I had no clue how to look after children.
As it turned out, no one noticed my inexperience.
At 21, I was one of the oldest nursery assistants.
Many were trainees and had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. There was no on-the-job training. Instead, we were thrown in at the deep end.
At times I was on my own with as many as 13 children, even though the law says carers waiting for their CRB clearance should always be closely supervised at all times.
And they shouldn't be allowed to change nappies and take children to the toilet.
With so many children to look after, I could barely make sure they were safe, let alone care for them individually. Instead, it was just damage limitation - I found myself grabbing broken glass, sticks and sharp objects from children as young as three.
One day, builders were brought in to fit guards to the radiators because one little boy - weeks earlier - had badly burnt his hand on one.
Scroll down for more...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Undercover: Imogen Willcocks is seen with children in this footage
The other staff told me that the owner, Satnam Parhar, had blamed the staff for not supervising the burned boy properly and that he was only getting the guards fitted because an Ofsted inspection was due.
The builders left their power tools inches away from where the children were playing and no one seemed to notice.
I spent that particular session on tenterhooks.
The nursery assistants at Buttons were poorly supervised and very poorly paid. I was on about £100 a week - less than the legal minimum wage. It's hardly surprising, then, that many of the staff were less than high-quality carers.
I saw two nursery assistants hauling a boy across the nursery by his arm. Then I heard a child being called a "sh*t-bag" and saw a little girl's head being shoved into a mattress on the floor as she didn't want to go.
When I complained to the owner that I had been left on my own with 13 children, he refused to accept what I was saying and called the idea crazy.
When I contacted him later, saying I had been undercover for a TV programme, he issued a statement.
"The care and safety of our children is of utmost importance.
"New joiners to our staff undertake a full induction programme and there are procedures in place to ensure the safety of children.
"We take any allegations or criticism very seriously and will investigate these complaints and take appropriate action."
My next childcare job took me to a nursery with the worst possible history.
In April 2006, a ten-month-old girl called Georgia Hollick had choked to death on a slice of apple at the Just Learning nursery in Cambourne, Cambridgeshire.
The inquest found that her death was accidental and made no criticism of the nursery.
However, a subsequent investigation by Ofsted found that children's health and safety were being compromised at the nursery.
Nevertheless, it was allowed to reopen less than a month after her death. Just
One day, I had to stop babies eating - and potentially choking on - small Christmas decorations that a member of staff had placed in the sandpit.
It was unbelievable that just 19 months after a baby choked to death at this nursery, such chances were still being taken with child safety.
Within days of the result of my investigation being put to them, Just Learning closed the Cambourne nursery and issued a statement saying: "The company has found that its rigorous policies and procedures have been seriously breached in this case and this was one factor considered when it decided to close this nursery.
"The issues at Cambourne are isolated to this one nursery."
But this still left the question of why such a failing nursery had previously survived a very critical Ofsted report following the death of a young child in its care.
The BBC has been given an internal Ofsted document that refers to the Tory MP Michael Fallon, who was managing director of Just Learning at the time of Georgia Hollick's death.
A passage says: "If we cancel this particular setting [nursery] then there are implications for Michael Fallon as he would be automatically disqualified [from running it]."
Mr Fallon has since responded, saying: "This is news for me and a matter for Ofsted. I have had no discussions with Ofsted about the fatal accident at Cambourne.
"I resigned as MD immediately afterwards.
"I strongly endorse the decision of the Board to close the nursery. The breach of the company's procedures was completely unacceptable."
After these two nurseries, I decided to investigate the self-styled upper end of the child-minding business, where I soon realised that the problems are not confined to our own shores.
Mark Warner operates at the top of the holiday market, charging up to £8,000 for two weeks abroad for a family of four.
It makes a point of offering "award-winning" childcare.
That award-winning care didn't extend to checking my CV, contacting my references, doing a criminal records check or even asking to see some basic ID. Again, I could have been anyone.
I worked at Mark Warner's swanky Hilton resort in Dahab, Egypt, where the luxurious hotel rooms are built to resemble a traditional whitewashed Arab village.
Despite being promised two days' training at the interview, I was thrown straight in with a group of toddlers.
Once, there were two of us looking after 13 children - when Mark Warner's own regulations state there should be no more than six per adult.
When I asked about my training, the manager just said: "You don't get official training as such. It's very relaxed, very laid-back here."
This is unlikely to be the approach parents think they are paying for.
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
Also, for such a prestigious company with an upmarket reputation, Mark Warner has a very cavalier attitude to the employment laws of the countries where it operates, and is not controlled by Ofsted.
Like many of its staff in Dahab, I was there on a tourist visa.
Mark Warner should have paid for work permits but instead had us break Egyptian law on their behalf.
We were told we should just lie and say we were there on holiday, but Egypt is not the kind of country-where you want to end up in prison.
Three weeks after I returned from Egypt, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from a Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal made headlines around the world.
No one blamed the company or its staff for the little girl's disappearance, but given the case, I assumed the company would toughen up its vetting of nannies.
To test this out, a BBC colleague applied for a Mark Warner childcare job and was sent to an upmarket French ski resort.
Her false CV went unchecked and, months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the company still didn't do a CRB check before she started work.
Later, I recounted my experiences to Mark Warner's managing director.
He refused to be interviewed but issued a statement that said: "It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and submit a form to check their criminal record.
"There were clearly two occasions where we failed to do this. That is completely unacceptable and we apologise.
"We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures."
For the final part of my investigation, I discovered that even an inexperienced 21-year old with no qualifications can also fool Ofsted.
I borrowed a large house, made no alterations to accommodate young children - despite the fact that no youngster had lived there for 20 years - and applied for a childminder's licence.
I admitted to the Ofsted inspector who visited that I had no fireguard, no first aid kit, no stairgates, no safety glass or socket covers. I didn't even have a table for the children to sit at.
The building was completely unsuitable.
But I did say I had a wish-list containing all those items and planned to install them. That was enough for the inspector and I got the go-ahead.
No one ever came back to check up that I had put them in place.
When contacted, Ofsted said in a statement that it would consider making improvements based on the findings that I had uncovered.
But it said: "Ours is the most intensive inspection and monitoring system in Europe. Our inspections of nurseries and childminders are rigorous and the vast majority of our inspectors are highly skilled professionals who do a good job. Ofsted is independent. We report without fear or favour."
I don't yet have children but having seen what I've seen, I can't imagine I'll ever risk putting my own into childcare.
? WHISTLEBLOWER is on BBC1 tonight at 8pm.
Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whistleblower: Full responses
12 March 2008, 4:07pm
The nurseries and organisations included in the Whistleblower expose on bad practice in the early years sector have been quick to respond to the programme's accusations. We have printed their statements in full.
MARK WARNER RESPONSE
It is company policy that all childcare staff employed by Mark Warner must supply two references and that we complete and submit a form to check their criminal record.
From the information given to us by the BBC ahead of the programme, there were clearly two occasions when we failed to do this.
That is completely unacceptable and we apologise for this. We have now reviewed and strengthened our procedures for hiring staff so this does not happen again.
We take the safety and security of children in our care extremely seriously.
That's why we were one of the first holiday companies in the UK to introduce criminal record checks for childcare staff, even though this has never been a legal requirement for staff working overseas.
It is also the reason why we replaced our very popular room listening service with a drop in crèche.
We recognised that it wasn't possible to provide room listening and guarantee that there would never be any safety or security issues of any kind. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and switched to drop in crèches.
Guests who have been on a Mark Warner holiday consistently tell us that the quality of our childcare is very high.
89 out of the 93 nannies we currently employ have a professional childcare qualification. The other four have proven childcare experience. And every single one of our watersports instructors have a professional qualification.
Over the past 25 years, we have taken over 150,000 families on holiday and won several awards for the quality of our service. We are determined to maintain that record.
Questions & Answers to issues raised in the BBC programme "Whistleblower" broadcast on March 5th 2008.
Q1. What is your reaction to the BBC Whistleblower programme?
A1. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, we let our customers down by failing to properly follow our established procedures for obtaining references before staff started working for us. That shouldn't have happened and we apologise for this. As a result, we have reviewed and strengthened our procedures for recruiting childcare staff, to stop this ever happening again.
Q2. What is your procedure for vetting childcare staff and how have you strengthened it following this programme?
A2. Prospective childcare staff must provide two references and, where relevant, original professional childcare qualification certificates before being offered a job. They must also provide personal information to enable us to submit a Criminal Bureau check. The two incidents highlighted by the BBC show that these procedures were not followed and so we have retrained our recruitment staff to ensure that this does not happen again.
Q3. Why did you let staff begin work without having received their CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) forms back?
A3. There is no legal requirement for any holiday company operating overseas to obtain a CRB check for their staff and the majority don't. These checks are required in other sectors, like the NHS and teaching, for staff who work with children. However, at Mark Warner, we decided five yeras ago to voluntarily introduce these checks for our nannies and we were one of the first holiday companies to do so. Unfortunately, we have no control over the length of time it takes for the check to be run and sent back to us. We would like the process to be quicker, but even companies and organisations legally required to run CRB checks face the same problem.
Q4. Your room listening service was criticised in the programme. What's your response to that?
A4. Our room listening service has always been very popular with guests. Unfortunately we stopped offering this service in 2007 because it was impossible to provide room listening and guarantee guests that there would never be any safety or security issues. So, as a responsible holiday company, we took action and replaced room listening with supervised evening crèche facilities at all our resorts.
Q5. The programme suggested that your nannies don't receive any training.
A5. To be able to join Mark Warner, all prospective childcare staff must already have a professional childcare qualification - such as an NNEB or NVQ - or a proven track record of working with children. After they start work, all childcare staff follow an induction programme which takes them through our own internal procedures such as fire and evacuation; lost child procedures; health & hygiene, as well as an explanation of their specific role and responsibilities.
Q.6 The programme suggested that children taking part in watersports aren't always supervised by staff who are competent in the water.
A.6 When children are involved in any beachfront activity, our professionally qualified watersports staff are responsible for their safety. In a typical summer, we employ over 200 of these staff and every single one has a qualification in watersports and life saving. Their qualifications are from internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the Royal Yachting Association and British Water Ski Federation.
Q.7 The programme suggested that your childcare is not "award winning". What is your response to that?
A.7 We have consistently received very high ratings from guests for the standard of childcare at our resorts. We have won an award from the children's baby charity Tommys for "Most Parent Friendly Tour Operator" as well as an award from Babygoes2.com and Ace Magazine awarded us a "Best for Families" award three years on the run for our resort - Lakitira in Greece.
Q.8 The programme mentioned the ratio of nannies to children. What is the ratio of nannies to children at your resorts?
A.8 In the UK, the Government's "Sure Start" guidelines on childcare state that the ratio should be one nanny to three Under 2's, one nanny to four 2 year olds and one nanny to eight 3 to 7 year olds. At Mark Warner, we not only comply with these ratios but, in some cases, better them.
Q.9 The programme claimed that staff in your resort in Egypt are working illegally and Mark Warner is therefore breaking the law?
A.9 The process of securing a work visa for staff in Egypt is lengthy and can take eight to nine months. We work closely with the Ministry of Labour to secure working visas for staff and the Egyptian authorities are aware that staff have to wait for their working visas to be processed.
Q.10 The programme was critical of Mark Warner, so what reassurance can you now offer to customers?
A.10 Over the past 25 years, we've taken hundreds of thousands of families on holiday. We've built our business on offering parents high quality childcare and a choice of first class resorts, with many guests writing to us each year to compliment us on the services we provided. We're disappointed that, on two occasions, the correct procedures for vetting and employing staff weren't followed. This is why we have already retrained staff and put in place measures to stop this happening again. We'd like to reassure customers that the safety, security and enjoyment of their holidays is our number one priority and always will be
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mark Warner never responded to the allegations regarding the lack of safety helmets for the children. Nor the fact that the BBC undercover reporter, and many other Mark Warner staff, were working illegally in Egypt.
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
As Verdi pointed out up thread, Cat Baker had only a handful of children under her care. The numbers in her group ranged from 3 to 7. Surely with this small number of children, it couldn't be the same level of chaos as depicted in the BBC whistle-blower TV program cited as evidence above.
HiDeHo, I think the major problem you have with this creche sheet business is your stubbornness over your position on Cat Baker. You believe Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns, and to prove it, you have to invent a stand in duplicate child.
Is it not more likely that there was no doppelganger, and that Nanny knew what was going on. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you can't simply take somebody as being truthful on a whim.
HiDeHo, I think the major problem you have with this creche sheet business is your stubbornness over your position on Cat Baker. You believe Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns, and to prove it, you have to invent a stand in duplicate child.
Is it not more likely that there was no doppelganger, and that Nanny knew what was going on. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you can't simply take somebody as being truthful on a whim.
JRP- Posts : 601
Activity : 1176
Likes received : 573
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 66
Location : UK
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
JRP wrote:As Verdi pointed out up thread, Cat Baker had only a handful of children under her care. The numbers in her group ranged from 3 to 7. Surely with this small number of children, it couldn't be the same level of chaos as depicted in the BBC whistle-blower TV program cited as evidence above.
HiDeHo, I think the major problem you have with this creche sheet business is your stubbornness over your position on Cat Baker. You believe Cat Baker was duped by the McCanns, and to prove it, you have to invent a stand in duplicate child.
Is it not more likely that there was no doppelganger, and that Nanny knew what was going on. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you can't simply take somebody as being truthful on a whim.
I am merely pointing out that there were approx 13 children in the creche and care workers are aware it takes a while to recognise children.
I would appreciate you not claiming 'stubborness' regarding Cat Baker and I have certainly not invented anything. I post what I see/believe and I feel my original post explains exactly how I feel and I have always maintained (that initially at least) Catriona was NOT involved.
I find it quite shocking to be 'expected' to think she was involved by claiming I am stubborn.
I have made a suggestion to what I honestly believe may have happened.
Perhaps you could show me an alternative explanation?
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
HiDeHo,
The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies.
I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child.
Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path.
The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care.
If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with.
The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies.
I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child.
Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path.
The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care.
If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with.
JRP- Posts : 601
Activity : 1176
Likes received : 573
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 66
Location : UK
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
@ HiDeHo. I certainly think the standard of childcare at the Ocean Club was dismal and that M.W. were terrified of that becoming public. Remember too, Cat had every reason to be nervous after Madeleine's disappearance. I recall clearly those around me at the time were utterly convinced that any abduction had to be an "inside job". Who was better placed to have learnt that the parents were leaving the children unattended at night and that Madeleine had been upset/frightened than her nanny? Who could have known exactly which apartment Madeleine was in - her nanny (after all the parents wrote it down for her to see each day!) Who could get a child to go with them without screaming and attracting attention - her nanny whom she trusted, having spent fun time with her each day. I would be astonished if the P.J., when forced to consider abduction, would not look closely at her nanny. What was her record, did she have a dodgy boyfriend etc. Where was she at the crucial time? Who could vouch for this? Had she revealed anything about Madeleine to an outsider etc. etc. Cat must have known she would be asked about all this as well as her observations of Madeleine, anything Madeleine might have told her that could be relevant and how she perceived the relationship between parents and child. The fact that Cat. was shipped out post-haste beyond the reach of questioning by M.W. suggests there was something to hide. I believe that "something" may have been the slip-shod childcare that week which may well have meant that the nannies couldn't vouch for anything.
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
Speaking as someone who assists in a crèche on a monthly/voluntary basis, I would have thought it would be difficult to get to know the names of a number of new children all at the same times as would be the case in a holiday setting. When you know most children & there's just one or two new ones to assimilate, it's much easier. Within a crèche setting, it tends to be the noisier ones who command more attention & so are more memorable in terms of looks and names. I can quite see how the nannies would not be completely clear about identifying all the children in the crèche & if they are coming & going at irregular times, all the more so.
mezzyd- Posts : 20
Activity : 30
Likes received : 10
Join date : 2017-04-19
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
JRP wrote:HiDeHo,
The reason I use the word stubborn is because every time this creche sheet subject is brought up, you begin it by saying that you believe Cat Baker, or you say Cat Baker is not telling lies.
I don't know what other word to use, but I've been here for almost two years and the numerous threads on this subject always follow the same line, that Cat Baker is not lying therefore she must have been duped by a stand in child.
Now I don't know what happened at the creche, or who signed Madeleine in and out, but surely it should be looked at with an open mind. To simply say you believe Cat Baker, leads us down the same old well trodden path.
The duplicate child is an invention, and to use BBC footage of a chaotic creche doesn't tally with a creche nanny only having 3 to 7 children under her care.
If the statement is true that Cat gave Madeleine an identity bracelet, then she knew who Madeleine was, she had seen her, so to expect us to believe that some other girl took her place and she didn't notice, I don't go along with.
It's your prerogative to believe as you wish and it's mine to look at the information I see and SUGGEST a possibility of how the McCanns managed to deceive everyone IF something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.
I make a note of claiming that Catriona was not complicit during that week. To suggest a young girl doing her job was involved in what the McCanns were trying to achieve is, without any 'evidence' is quite frankly someting I find offensive.
We are all aware (or should be) as to how some people can be 'manipulated' or guided to claim things that are not exactly a true representation, in this case not only to maintain her job credibility but also, IF she could not remember seeing Maddie but was TOLD that she was looking after Maddie she could hardly question it, keeping in mind that the creche was not initially in question as the 'abduction' was from the apartment so to follow along with what she was 'told' (about Maddie being there until Thursday) was not something I would consider as complicit.
Once this was acknowledged, there was no turning back for her and likely/possibly the McCanns managed to 'remind' her of many details.
Similar happened to Dianne when she claimed categorically that she did NOT see Matt while walking towards the creche (when Fiona, David and Matt all claimed to see each other...in different locations along the route)
A year later in the rogatories she claimed that she was wrong after being 'reminded' by Fiona and David.
I use the footage of an example of the 'chaos' with several children of a similar age. She was allocated 7 children but shared the room with Sharks, meaning there were possibly 13 children using the facilities in the room and likely were not separated. The video was an example of how it may feel as opposed to imagining a room with 13 under fives quietly playing together.
Like everyone else, I DON'T KNOW how it was or what happened, but this is a POSSIBILITY that I am putting forward for those that believe something happened earlier in which case the creche needs to be explained.
Please do not use the word 'substitute' child in this scenario. Ella was already in the creche and was not sent as a 'substitute'. I suggest the possibility that she was MISTAKEN for Maddie and not substituted.
Its important to explain how the creche scenario was achieved for those that believe something happened earlier.
I am awaiting other suggestions.
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
mezzyd wrote:Speaking as someone who assists in a crèche on a monthly/voluntary basis, I would have thought it would be difficult to get to know the names of a number of new children all at the same times as would be the case in a holiday setting. When you know most children & there's just one or two new ones to assimilate, it's much easier. Within a crèche setting, it tends to be the noisier ones who command more attention & so are more memorable in terms of looks and names. I can quite see how the nannies would not be completely clear about identifying all the children in the crèche & if they are coming & going at irregular times, all the more so.
That is important to remember. Thanks mezzyd.
The point IS that for those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then she would likely not be remembered later especially when this photo was used to identify her (as someone has also suggested) that it is the reason the younger photo was used, to avoid recognising Maddie and claiming NOT to have seen her.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
I should also like to add that I feel it slightly disconcerting that Catrions Baker spent time with the McCanns back in the UK some time after events in PdL. I believe initially it was by invitation from the McCanns. Was she the only nanny invited to meet them back home ?
Seems a little strange
Seems a little strange
polyenne- Posts : 963
Activity : 1575
Likes received : 590
Join date : 2017-03-31
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
polyenne wrote:I should also like to add that I feel it slightly disconcerting that Catrions Baker spent time with the McCanns back in the UK some time after events in PdL. I believe initially it was by invitation from the McCanns. Was she the only nanny invited to meet them back home ?
Seems a little strange
I agree that the invitation was 'odd' and coincided with the Secret Meeting at Rothley
This would be the time before the rogatories that I see the possibility that they may have 'reminded' Catriona of some of the details they wanted known.
SECRET MEETING Mirror Article wrote:'Tapas 9' in secret McCann meeting
- [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
- [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
By Rod Chaytor and Victoria Ward 11/12/2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Kate and Gerry McCann (Reuters)
Kate and Gerry McCann held a secret meeting with the rest of the "Tapas Nine" amid reports that Portuguese police are coming to Britain to re-interview them, it was revealed yesterday.
The friends met last month for the first time since the McCanns' four-year-old daughter Madeleine vanished in Portugal seven months ago.
They were all dining with the couple in a tapas bar near the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where Madeleine was sleeping with two-year-old twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie.
Portuguese police were furious about the meeting. A source close to the investigation claimed it was "highly suspicious" that they had met up to "talk tactics".
Detectives are said to be awaiting formal clearance to come to Britain and question the nine again about alleged discrepancies in their statements.
But the couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell denied that the nine had gathered to square their accounts before a police visit.
He said the emotional reunion "a few weeks ago" at a hotel near the couple's home in Rothley, Leics "was just to discuss the overall situation.
"They weren't comparing notes or doing anything untoward. It was an operational meeting to discuss what might be coming up in the next few weeks.
"They are in touch all the time by phone and emails anyway but decided to meet face to face. They were together for a few hours and discussed the overall position. They wanted to see each other because they hadn't done so for some time."
He added: "It was a private meeting and I therefore don't want to say more about it."
The other seven members of the party are heart specialist Dr David Payne, 41, his doctor wife Fiona, 34, hospital consultant Dr Russell O'Brien, 36, his partner Jane Tanner, 37, endocrinologist Dr Matthew Oldfield, 37, and wife Rachael, 36, and Dr Payne's mother Dianne Webster.
They are key witnesses who gave police crucial evidence supporting the couple's belief that Madeleine was kidnapped.
Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a small child in pink pyjamas like Madeleine's away from the flat. Three have given statements claiming they saw Robert Murat, the first official suspect, outside the apartment - though he claimed he was at home with his mother.
A friend of the couple claimed the meeting gave the lie to a rumour that some of the party had fallen out with the McCanns and were preparing to change their statements.
The source said: "It was a show of solidarity under police claims that one or two had wanted to change their stories. That is not the case and the meeting showed that.
"It was a meeting to express support by the friends and just to see each other again. They hadn't all seen each other for months."
The friend said the reunion last month was kept secret because of the huge interest it would have generated.
The McCanns were officially made suspects on September 7 by Portuguese police, who believed they accidentally killed Madeleine and hid her body. Some detectives are said to have suspected that some or all of the seven helped cover up the crime.
A furious Portuguese police source said: "This meeting is highly suspicious.
"The McCanns left Portugal and flew home the moment they were made suspects and refused to answer many key questions about what had happened.
"Now, they and their friends are about to be re-interviewed and it is revealed they have met up in secret in a hotel.
"The McCanns are suspects and their friends are witnesses who could soon also have arguido (official suspect) status. They should not be meeting to discuss the case and certainly not the evidence."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
HiDeHo,
There are only two alternatives, either Cat Baker knew Madeleine was in the creche or she didn't know Madeline was in the creche, it's as simple as that.
I find it odd that you find an opinion which is opposite to yours offensive. I can understand you not agreeing with me as that is your prerogative, but to find what I said offensive is a little strange.
With regard to mezzyd's point about it being difficult to remember names, there were only 2 to 7 children in the creche during the holiday week, perhaps mezzyd has a few more to remember in her/his workplace.
I have a shop, we see more than 7 people during a day, if somebody orders something today, I'll remember their name when they return. It's part of the job, as is remembering kids names in a creche, and I don't have the advantage of glancing at wristbands.
Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?
There are only two alternatives, either Cat Baker knew Madeleine was in the creche or she didn't know Madeline was in the creche, it's as simple as that.
I find it odd that you find an opinion which is opposite to yours offensive. I can understand you not agreeing with me as that is your prerogative, but to find what I said offensive is a little strange.
With regard to mezzyd's point about it being difficult to remember names, there were only 2 to 7 children in the creche during the holiday week, perhaps mezzyd has a few more to remember in her/his workplace.
I have a shop, we see more than 7 people during a day, if somebody orders something today, I'll remember their name when they return. It's part of the job, as is remembering kids names in a creche, and I don't have the advantage of glancing at wristbands.
Just one final question, which has been asked before, While Ella was being Madeleine, who was being Ella?
JRP- Posts : 601
Activity : 1176
Likes received : 573
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 66
Location : UK
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
I can't see any way any nursery worker could be fooled into thinking one child was another.
Speaking from experience, I have worked in nurseries as a supply assistant (often going into nurseries for just one day) and by the end of the day you not only know every single child's name but their faces and personalities stick in your memory for days, even weeks. I'm talking whole classes of 20+ children, after just one day with them.
Speaking from experience, I have worked in nurseries as a supply assistant (often going into nurseries for just one day) and by the end of the day you not only know every single child's name but their faces and personalities stick in your memory for days, even weeks. I'm talking whole classes of 20+ children, after just one day with them.
____________________
Jose Maria Batista Roque: “He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying."
Russell O'Brien: "if there was any foul play bestowed on them, this was the... the... the most powerful Oscar winning act you have ever seen."
Julie R- Posts : 36
Activity : 60
Likes received : 24
Join date : 2017-12-13
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
According to the story, Ella was collected by her father (though signed out by Cat) at 4.30p.m. on Thurs afternoon. That left Madeleine as the only girl Cat had charge of after 4.30p.m. on Thursday. The activity that afternoon from 3.30- 4.30p.m. was "dive and find". According to Cat the child she calls Madeleine took part in this activity. Ella couldn't have, because of her foot. For Ella to have been mistaken for Madeleine she would have had to have gone in the water. Cat also knew which child was leaving with Russell at 4.30 p.m. well enough to sign her out, ergo she knew Ella and could not have mistaken her for Madeleine. If Ella had "been" Madeleine that afternoon before she left with Russell, who on earth was the girl who remained behind with Cat for the last hour and for High tea?
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
I maintain that I find anything suggesting Catriona was lying (indicating she was complicit) is very wrong. It's not an opinion, I see it as an accusation and regardless whether I find her rogatory statement questionable I do not for one second see ANY indication that she was complicit during that week.
As I have explained many times she was a young girl doing her job and I OFFERED a suggestion how it MAY have happened.
I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, in fact I may be wrong, but I prefer that anyone that disagrees, offers an alternative to show how it MAY have happened.
I do not have an agenda on this case. Its not important to me if I am right or wrong because the TRUTH of what happened to little Maddie surpasses any need to boost an ego.
I did many years of research and am offering what I have put together to try to make sense of the situation.
For those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then its IMPORTANT to base that belief on what we know from the files and HOW it was accomplished to deceive everyone about how Maddie was presumed to be in the creche when she wasn't.
Just 'guessing' she was not around the Ocean Club does not give credibility to something happening earlier. It needs to be explained HOW it was accomplished, apart from T7 statements that were contrived and suggested she was seen.
I believe something happened earlier so I am attempting to back up that thought with the research I have done.... and the POSSIBILITY of how the creche could be explained.
The police files tell us that Maddie died in the apartment and the parents hid her body and faked an abduction.
Could all that be accomplished in an hour and half?
I don't believe so.
I would be interested to hear a timeline of that hour and half to explain it and all we have learned from the statements and facts from the case.
It is my responsibility to back up my thoughts with an explanation of how it was all accomplished. I certainly could not explain how it happened during the dinner that night.
I welcome someone that can, take the time to explain it to me.
I am not here to presume guilt for someone who may be innocent.... I am here to help make sense of what happened by using the files....
I would be interested in hearing from someone that DOES feel the OP could have some possibility.
This is research in progress... It's not a fully fledged conclusion.
As I have explained many times she was a young girl doing her job and I OFFERED a suggestion how it MAY have happened.
I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, in fact I may be wrong, but I prefer that anyone that disagrees, offers an alternative to show how it MAY have happened.
I do not have an agenda on this case. Its not important to me if I am right or wrong because the TRUTH of what happened to little Maddie surpasses any need to boost an ego.
I did many years of research and am offering what I have put together to try to make sense of the situation.
For those that believe something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then its IMPORTANT to base that belief on what we know from the files and HOW it was accomplished to deceive everyone about how Maddie was presumed to be in the creche when she wasn't.
Just 'guessing' she was not around the Ocean Club does not give credibility to something happening earlier. It needs to be explained HOW it was accomplished, apart from T7 statements that were contrived and suggested she was seen.
I believe something happened earlier so I am attempting to back up that thought with the research I have done.... and the POSSIBILITY of how the creche could be explained.
The police files tell us that Maddie died in the apartment and the parents hid her body and faked an abduction.
Could all that be accomplished in an hour and half?
I don't believe so.
I would be interested to hear a timeline of that hour and half to explain it and all we have learned from the statements and facts from the case.
It is my responsibility to back up my thoughts with an explanation of how it was all accomplished. I certainly could not explain how it happened during the dinner that night.
I welcome someone that can, take the time to explain it to me.
I am not here to presume guilt for someone who may be innocent.... I am here to help make sense of what happened by using the files....
I would be interested in hearing from someone that DOES feel the OP could have some possibility.
This is research in progress... It's not a fully fledged conclusion.
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
polyenne wrote:BTW, I contacted Chris Unsworth around the middle of last year (he's at Exeter Uni IIRC) and put to him a short list of questions.
He failed to respond.
Failed to respond?
Can't say I blame him. If some stranger contacted me and started asking questions, I'd tell whoever to go swivel! What impertinence!
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex moderator
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
HiDeHo wrote:
Considering Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley were the instructors on the beach when Maddie was supposedly attending the mini sail. They were interviewed 'unofficially' according to the files.
One would think their statements would have been important (more so than some of the other staff).
I really can't see the significance here - why would their statements be considered important?
Firstly, the PJ were primarily looking at the disappearance/abduction of Madeleine as claimed by the parents and their friends - the night of Thursday 3rd May, therefore there would have been no reason to question whether or not Madeleine was among the group at the beach mini-sail.
Moving on, the beach animateurs who supervised the boating trip couldn't be expected to know or recognize the identity of any one of a group of children never seen before. Catriona Baker however most certainly should have known the identity of children in her care.
The informal conversation with Unsworth and Stanley would have been only to establish if they saw anyone, or anything, suspicious when the children were at the beach. I'm in no doubt, if the PJ thought the beach workers were persons of interest, they would have been formally interviewed.
Essentially the PJ were looking for a potential abductor and/or evidence of suspicious behaviour wherever the children were during the week.
____________________
“ The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi- ex moderator
- Posts : 34684
Activity : 41936
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02
Location : Flossery
Re: Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I don't imagine those who believe Madeleine died on May 3rd accept that it could only have happened in "an hour and a half". Why should they? Madeleine allegedly left high tea sometime between 5.30 and 6 p.m. (If she was there at all!) What is to stop those who believe death occurred on May 3rd from considering that it happened during this four and a half hour period? The only witness who claimed to have seen Madeleine alive and well after tea was David Payne - enough said. (For the record I personally believe she was dead by Thursday morning). However, I cannot see why you fix on an hour and a half - because the McCanns say she was fine when they left for dinner? Why should anyone take that as true? It is inaccurate (IMO) to state that the only options must be - either dead before Thursday or died between 8.30- 10 p.m. on Thurs. night.
On another point, seeing as Madeleine created such a fuss about being afraid to sail one would have expected the sailing instructors to also mention this. I'm sure that in an effort to assuage her fear they would have spoken to her. If they mentioned noticing/ interacting with her it would help to confirm whether she was actually there.
On another point, seeing as Madeleine created such a fuss about being afraid to sail one would have expected the sailing instructors to also mention this. I'm sure that in an effort to assuage her fear they would have spoken to her. If they mentioned noticing/ interacting with her it would help to confirm whether she was actually there.
Phoebe- Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
Join date : 2017-03-01
Page 2 of 17 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17
Similar topics
» Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
» Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
» RESEARCH RESULTS: Is THIS how the McCanns were able to DECEIVE everyone into believing Maddie was ALIVE and at the creche?
» If the TWINS were not at their creche Thursday morning why did the McCanns LIE and what were they doing between 9am and 12.30PM?
» The Creche, The Records, An Intent To Deceive And By Whom?
» Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?
» RESEARCH RESULTS: Is THIS how the McCanns were able to DECEIVE everyone into believing Maddie was ALIVE and at the creche?
» If the TWINS were not at their creche Thursday morning why did the McCanns LIE and what were they doing between 9am and 12.30PM?
» The Creche, The Records, An Intent To Deceive And By Whom?
Page 2 of 17
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum