news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8345756.stm

Vanessa George gets a minimum of 7 years.That is a minimum tariff,she could of course be held for life.

Angela Allen got a minimum of 5 years,Colin Blanchard will be sentenced later.

"took photographs on her phone of her abusing toddlers at Little Ted's Nursery."

I wonder what that means. I recall a photo of Thomas Hamilton, in one of the Dunblane reports a few years back, saying it showed him molesting a young boy. In fact, in his role as gym instructor, he was steadying a boy who had just landed from a leap over the 'horse'. Hamilton had committed a terrible crime, but there was no way that photo could seriously be described as evidence of him committing abuse. It must have sent shivers through every gym instructor in the country.

Vanessa George seems to have been sentenced very quickly. Maybe because she confessed. I've no idea whether she is guilty or not, but I do now always question whether the word abuse is being properly applied. These days you could say that a photo of a woman changing a baby's nappy is evidence of "abuse". Or that TV commercial with several women kissing babies naked bottoms. (rather them than me ).

The words of Horace Rumpole come to mind. "There is no evidence more unreliable than a confession."

I know it was all ghastly but that sounds excessive to me. She didn't murder anyone did she ?

did she fiddle with them or just take snaps ?...and are the parents going to spend the next few years traumatising their kids over it by reminding them constantly of what went on.

Like the pooor woman whose son was murdered by Myra Hindley and the body never found and who never had any peace when the tabloids decided to run a Moors Murder tale very few years. Died of a broken heart helped by Fleet Street.

I don't know if the charges against her were read out in court. I suppose they must have been, but as far as I know, no details of the charges were reported in the media. The term "abuse" is a very broad term. So she must have confessed to something serious for her to get seven years. However, I doubt that we'll ever know what it was.

From Day One something really stinks about the entire episode.

JK2006 wrote:
From Day One something really stinks about the entire episode.

Trouble is we only heard what the courts and meejah wanted us to hear.She was initially questioned without a solicitor! In Italy for example it is illegal to do this,should be the same here,would certainly cut down on bad convictions.

So far as I'm aware they can only interview you without a solicitor if you wave the right to legal representation, or if your solicitor agrees to it. In either case it's best to reply to all questions with "No comment".

Seven years? They should throw away the bloody key.
According to the reports in the Daily Mail, she used an object to penetrate one of the children, this one offence alone carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
How many of you guys would want her looking after your children?

I wouldn't want the Daily Mail looking after my posters either, Tim.

Take a stupid woman, prime her with sympathy and the right questions, make her feel loved by sweet words and kind sympathy, and our wonderful British cops can make anyone admit to anything.

Except, it appears, giving the names of "victims", which would earn her a lesser sentence.

So why isn't this woman making up names then? Probably because she's too stupid to know how to, if the "victims" don't actually exist.

It's not quite as obvious as it seems. Penetration by objects would probably cause injuries of some kind. None reported.

"We'll probably never know the identity of the victims" says Plod.

Hmm. Wonder why not.

"According to reports in the Daily Mail"

I wonder what their original reports said about Sean Hodgson or Angela Canning?