The police havent confirmed if the woman was Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checked- but it was not a council run nursery so it is possible that she wasn't checked.
Whether a setting is Council run or private there is no guarantee that all recruitment checks have been taken up by the setting. This is but one of the unsatisfactory "Child Protection" situations overseen and legislated by the DCSF. Please see the following article in the Times Educational Supplement of last week http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6014831&navcode=94
It was visited by Ofsted inspectors in 2007 who said: “[Protecting children from harm or neglect and helping them stay safe] is satisfactory.
“Children are cared for in a mainly safe and secure environment.”
Inspectors added: “Use of risk assessments and vigilant supervision by staff reduces potential hazards for children within the setting.”
They said: “The setting promotes and safeguards children’s welfare by maintaining the majority of required procedures and documents. For example, all staff hold current first aid certificates and each has a good knowledge of child protection procedures.”"
Again we have Ofsted, an inspectorate not known for the accuracy or quality of its welfare inspections. Follow this link to see an example of an appalling error by this inspectorate, they just shrug and say nothing. Please read the article and the comments below at: http://www.questions4schools.org.uk/forparents-rep1.php
And how do they know that all of the employees have "a good knowledge of child protection procedures"?
Sadly the answer is that they do not. Again what Ofsted are meant to do and what they actually do are two different things.
The landscape of child protection in education is fractured as this article in the Times newspaper of April 09 indicates :http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6156931.ece
Also on the Questions4Schools website is the head of Ofsted being interviewed at a recent Select Committee meeting on their failure to inspect and report against known failures at a particular school. http://www.questions4schools.org.uk/forparents.php
follow this link and look for the screen with the title "Children Schools and Families Select Committee Meeting."
I have recently provided a comment to a well highly respected man in the field of Child Protection who is replying to the Times Ed Supplement. My comment to him as an abusee was:
Those with an unhealthy interest in the young are best rewarded when concentrating their effort towards child rich environments which include schools. In order to avoid repeating the criminal events which visited Stony Dean School in Amersham and Gatehouse School in Milton Keynes, where the executive body of both schools failed to secure robust checks on members of staff who went on to abuse, it is vital that all schools should embrace the NCSL course to protect the vulnerable for whom they are responsible. But it must also be remembered that a CRB clearance only means that a new or existing member of staff is unknown to the authorities, but they may still have an unhealthy interest in the young.
A CRB check (Criminal Records Bureau) informs a setting if someone is known to be a risk to children. It is a criminal offence for a setting to employ anyone who has been barred from working with children which a CRB check will confirm. But of course there are many more unknown perpetrators than the numbers of the CRB register.
But bizarrely while you can be charged for employing someone who is a known danger to children, there is still no statutory obligation on any setting to report alleged abuse (emotional, physical, or sexual) to the authorities, and if a setting fails to report alleged abuse and this is somehow discovered, there is no sanction on the setting for failing to report.
You really cound not make this stuff up!