news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8302520.stm

Surely police interviews must be private.
Please also note that the first interview was without a lawyer.So why did she not wait for a lawyer? This was a very serious charge,and police were taking advantage of her before she had proper legal advice.
Remember she was dragged out of bed in the middle of the night,disorientated,all part of the police plan to bypass the legal rights of the defendant.

I find it strange that the Police can release any interview as "public entertainment". I would think that a person still has the right to their "image" even if they are in a cell - and if that is not the case then it should be.

What does showing interviews gain ? The only reason this has been released is that they want to prolong this story to wipe out the bad news on the economy today which was :

1. MORTGAGE LENDING dropped in August.

2. MPs forced to pay back expenses including BROWN

3. BANKS in USA forced to write down their loans book due to collapsing house prices and foreclosures

4. GOLD continuing to set record highs because the currency markets are worried.

5. STOCK MARKETS continuing to be pumped up QUANTATIVE EASING money - forcing them to a one year high based on NO real data ( A bubble waiting to burst and cause the second crash and depression - it is like inflating a bubblegum.....)

So there you have it - more evidence of a coming crash and VANESSA GEORGE is today's sideshow for New Labour via their POLICE and BBC friends.

those in police media units have become so savvy these days in manipulating public opinion they could always find a job in Hollywood if they wanted a change in pace.

The one episode I saw of the first series of To Catch a Paedophile on ITV showed one accused asking the police if they could remove the TV camera crew from the station, or at least make them stop filming him, to which the police replied that they could not stop them as the police station was a public place.

The TV crew also followed them into the interview room. I was sure at the time that this must have been against the rights of the accused, no matter what he'd done. I can only hope that if he'd been found not guilty they would not have released the film.

Now my local police station is locked all day and you can only gain access by appintment, so ours isn't much a public place.

In the case of Vanessa George it is rather odd that they release the interview even before any court hearing. Surely this is prejudicial?

This monster has not only admitted, but has been photographed abusing very young children. Why should we give a shit about her privacy now? If she denied all knowledge, the video wouldn't be broadcast for legal reasons. Sorry, but when you commit certain evil, disgusting crimes like this you deserve everything thats coming to you. What about the families? The kids? Just watching that video, made me want to kick my screen in.

In which case you suffer from premature anger, Angel. None of us know the facts yet. We only know what the media tells us. Stefan Kisko confessed to murdering a young girl and spent 14 years in jail before being proven not guilty. Sean Hodgson spent 27 years in jail after a false confession. There are several other cases of people confessing to crimes we later find out they could not have committed. Nothing is black and white. As for any film of her abusing children; I have yet to see it. I'm not going to simply assume guilt based on a limited media report, and neither should you. If she is guilty then let a jury decide based on real evidence as opposed to armchair judges basing their verdict on a news report.

Angel wrote:
This monster has not only admitted, but has been photographed abusing very young children. Why should we give a shit about her privacy now? If she denied all knowledge, the video wouldn't be broadcast for legal reasons. Sorry, but when you commit certain evil, disgusting crimes like this you deserve everything thats coming to you. What about the families? The kids? Just watching that video, made me want to kick my screen in.

If we can't respect the law as a nation what hope have we got of expecting mere minions of doing the same?

Yes, its right not to jump to conclusions and yes it should be for the courts to decide. God knows how much we all have faith in the justice system, but I can't for the life of me think why someone would admit to such a crime, have photographic evidence to prove it (allegedly) and yet be innocent. Its the sheer disgusting nature of this crime that makes my blood boil. I just don't get it.

I have to agree with Innocent Accused here- whatever we think about the crime and those who (may) have committed the crime, the law has to be applied evenly across the board, otherwise it has no validity at all.

And let's not forget, people do confess to crimes they have not committed.

I am not saying whether I think this woman is guilty- she may be,I have no way of knowing- but the same standards should be applied to every trial regardless.

If people will confess to a murder they did not commit, and wich is the worst crime of all, then they will confess to anything.

And what does the alleged photographic evidence show? Howe do they define sexual abuse. People are accused of sexual abuse when all they have done is bath a baby or sat with their arm around a toddler in underwear, none of which is real abuse. So, with the definition so warped out of proportion they could be talking about anything.

Did any serious crime take place at all? Or are we into the fantasy realm of the coconut shell again?

What is blindingly obvious to me is that the woman (as well as being obviously intimidated by the coppers) is as thick as two short planks - and so it will probably transpire are all the other pillocks connected with this 'case'. Thus completely 'expendable' in the name of paedohysteria with no likliood of being able to articulate any truth.
Or is it me, am I too aware and too advanced to be a part of this society?

Chris you are.

The "awakening" that is taking place right now in society is being felt by many many people. Perhaps the majority of people as far as I can see.

For years we have accepted the media as truth and spin as truth.

What has happened since 2003 are two major things :

1. 9.11 and Iraq War showed how we are lied to as people by the state using the media. The general public ( 80% ) now realises this.

2. The internet has allowed TRUTH to leak out and has made SPIN and LIES difficult - you only have to look at yesterday's injunction against the Guardian failing because of the blogosphere and twitter to see that TRUTH cant be suppressed easily anymore.

What will happen :

1. ICKE says it will now undermine the NWO and they will lose power by 2016.

2. In the UK we already see the EXPENSES SCANDAL but we will see many many more revelations during the next 5 years as whistleblowers come out and highlight the corruption by corporate companies at OUR EXPENSE.

3. Why should the poor pay for the CORPORATE economomic errors ? this will hit hard next year.

Therefore our disbelief about this story is right. Too much does not seem right or add up. The whole thing seems to be a "media circus" and planned by the POLICE / GOVERNMENT. Not least the media frenzy about Female Paedophiles.

The POLICE want to criminalise EVERY FEMALE as a potential PAEDO ( They feel they have succeeded with men )

How can we overthrow this :

1. Refuse to play their checking games. It is time the general public said NO to the illegal and expensive LICENCE system they want to enforce on us all. If everyone says NO to this then it is unenforcable. Youth groups and schools will have no volunteers and will have to close - therefore the system will be ditched.

2. With CRB checks - if you already have one say you dont want another unless they can show that you have been convicted of something. CRB checks are pointless as these NURSERY CRIMES have shown. Offenders generally will pass these checks and then carry on with the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT stamp of approval.

We must de-criminalise everyone and make sure that everyone gets proper representation and fair trials where the real evidence is heard.

Until then this country lacks any credibility for fairness and honesty.

The media hide all the detail about these cases in order to be able to publish what the spinmasters want. This should stop.

JC wrote:
If people will confess to a murder they did not commit, and wich is the worst crime of all, then they will confess to anything.

And what does the alleged photographic evidence show? Howe do they define sexual abuse. People are accused of sexual abuse when all they have done is bath a baby or sat with their arm around a toddler in underwear, none of which is real abuse. So, with the definition so warped out of proportion they could be talking about anything.

Did any serious crime take place at all? Or are we into the fantasy realm of the coconut shell again?

No physical damage was ever found on any kids.Sounds like at worst she took some revealing pics.Then the police interrogated her in the middle of the night,while she was no doubt in a state of shock,and with no solicitor.
If they had time to organize a big raid,well surely they could have had a duty solicitor ready? I contest it was their plan all along to try to get this woman to confess to something,while depriving her of lawful legal assistance.
Notice they cut off the video when it's mentioned a solicitor is coming.No doubt the solicitor instructed her to stay silent.She didn't sound happy at going no comment in later interviews.I've been there,my duty solicitor said do not answer,and there is a good reason for that,eg the prosecution barrister spends a lot of time trying to tie you up in knots,and get you to admit to even a small variation in court from your original statement being a lie.Once you admit to a single lie they then play on that.