RTÉ Investigates tonight (21:35): Crèches, Behind Closed Doors

Boggles

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A manager advising the staff to lie a baby on its tummy might . Holding a childs face and pushing it down might at very least be given a warning ?

Unless the baby was very young, they are more than capable of sleeping on their tummy.

They didn't look that young to me, I could be wrong though.

As for keeping the childs head down, Assault?

Be a tough one prove.

Gatling

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A manager advising the staff to lie a baby on its tummy might . Holding a childs face and pushing it down might at very least be given a warning ?

Inappropriate touching
Univited touching
Assault

Failure of mandated Persons to report Children at risk

iamwhoiam

Boggles wrote: »

Unless the baby was very young, they are more than capable of sleeping on their tummy.

They didn't look that young to me, I could be wrong though.

As for keeping the childs head down, Assault?

Be a tough one prove.

Best practice for young babies is not to force them on their tummies
Some will turn themselves but its never adviced to force them into that position
Will be very tough to prove but I hope she is blacklisted from never working with children again

One eyed Jack

Boggles wrote: »

Unless the baby was very young, they are more than capable of sleeping on their tummy.

They didn't look that young to me, I could be wrong though.

As for keeping the childs head down, Assault?

Be a tough one prove.

They have video evidence of child neglect, be nothing hard to prove there. Unfortunately I don’t expect anything more than a fine which will be paid by the company which is a family run business. They issued a very carefully worded statement that Ms. Davy would be stepping down from her position and will take no future role in front line childcare provision -


However, having been made aware of RTE's findings, the company has confirmed that Anne Davy is stepping down and "will take no future role in front line childcare provision".

The statement read: "In recent months she has occasionally fallen below the standards of our behavioural management policy and has found herself being short, rather than simply direct."


“Occasionally fallen below the standards of our behavioural management policy” is a gross understatement of the facts.

Hannibal_Smith

faceman wrote: »

Gardai have confirmed they are investigating the issues raised.

Excellent

Boggles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They have video evidence of child neglect, be nothing hard to prove there.

Have they?

Under the legal definition of child neglect.

I'm not so sure they do.

I'm not in anyway defending her, but I don't see grounds to meet a criminal threshold.

One eyed Jack

Boggles wrote: »

Have they?

Under the legal definition of child neglect.

I'm not so sure they do.

I'm not in anyway defending her, but I don't see grounds to meet a criminal threshold.

Ahh I know you’re not defending her at all, jesus :pac:

No you make a fair point that it would be difficult to secure a conviction for assault on the basis of the video evidence we’ve seen at least, but a charge of child neglect under the Children’s Act could certainly be possible -

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/246/enacted/en/html

That’s not to mention the numerous other breaches of regulations. I would imagine there would be plenty more evidence the public aren’t privy to in any investigation carried out by the Gardaí or Tusla or the HSE -


Hyde and Seek: Crèche chain at centre of RTÉ expose to hire external consultants, gardaí also launch investigation


Plenty of noise while they carry on business as usual (or change the name of the business again to avoid any potential negative publicity).

branie2

The creche should be shut down

iamwhoiam

branie2 wrote: »

The creche should be shut down

They should send in supervisors at least . Then shutting it overnight would put huge pressure on families with no support to help them out with childcare

One eyed Jack

Ivy Crooked Dial wrote: »

What about a couple that have no children, want children, and cannot afford even a basic house or apartment in Dublin on one salary? The only 'choice' they have is to forego having a child. That's a huge sacrifice to ask of anyone and not a fair one.

I don’t mean you to think I was ignoring your question but the existence of couples who have children already and have chosen to forego other things such as permanent housing would suggest that people have choices, they just don’t appear to make the same choices as other people, simply because they have different priorities. Nobody is asking anyone to make sacrifices, it’s just a fact that when their resources are limited, people have to prioritise one thing over another.

I won’t even get into whether that’s fair or not because what is fair or not simply depends upon what one person regards as fair, and another person doesn’t, such as the provision of housing by the State for people who have chosen to prioritise having children over providing a permanent home for themselves and said children.

Ivy Crooked Dial wrote: »

Successive governments have created and allowed to continue a situation where the cost of supporting and putting a roof over a family's head is not possible, for many many people, on one salary. They have also actively encouraged and incentivised young parents, and particularly women, to remain in the workforce in order to grow our economy. They therefore have responsibility for ensuring that there are safe and affordable childcare options for those people. Instead they have allowed the flourishing of creches run as profit making businesses by people who have no interest in children, no knowledge of childcare and no interest in the welfare of the children they are being paid to look after.

They actually don’t have any responsibility to ensure safe and affordable childcare options, for anyone. We’re not living in some form of socialist society. I can’t even fathom how you might have thought the State had any such responsibility or what it might even be called. I do agree with you though that the State does permit the childcare provision industry to flourish, and provides them with significant funding in order to meet the States obligations towards the welfare of children at least (maybe that’s what you meant? I dunno) -


RTÉ Investigates creche Hyde and Seek clears €2.75m in profits as it gets €1.25m from the State


But businesses being established to meet the demand for childcare provision are as a result of parental demand for their services! That is entirely the responsibility of parents and is entirely at their discretion as to what they choose for their families. I personally am quite happy that the State isn’t permitted to interfere in the privacy of the family to the degree some people would wish it could, because that would come at an even greater cost to society. The childcare provision industry is certainly not without it’s issues, but like any other service people have the choice to avail of or not, childcare provision is no different in that respect than any other services offered to the public which they can choose to avail of or not. Some service providers are better than others, it depends upon what criteria are important to people in making their decisions for themselves and their families.

mikeym

I wonder did the parents send their kids into that place after watching the programme?

stampydmonkey

mikeym wrote: »

I wonder did the parents send their kids into that place after watching the programme?

Passed glasnevin one this morning and saw a good few buggies outside

Jump_In_Jack

Any chance of the parents suing for fraud?
Must be something in the lying and the dangerous behavior regarding over crowding with lack of supervision and blocking fire exits.
Would love to see that witch stripped of all her assets and that business being taken over and run by someone decent instead.
She should be bankrupted the evil old hag!

Rubberchikken

these things only show how toothless Tusla and the dept overseeing it is.

if a person can open and run an establishment for 14 months before being 'forced' to register, where tge name keeps changing, where the owner has been found liable for leaving a kid behind on an outing etc, it shows what a shambles the system is.

i wont be watching it. don't have rte. wouldnt anyway tbh. this crap is just a cheap.programme to make for rte. guaranteed to produce watet cooler chat and outrage and will then die down again

Gatling

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Any chance of the parents suing for fraud?
Must be something in the lying and the dangerous behavior regarding over crowding with lack of supervision and blocking fire exits

Doubt it but I'd expect some solicitors will be floating around the parents suggesting personal injury claims for PTSD in their kids and mammy and daddy too

iamwhoiam

Prime Time is about the issue now

iamwhoiam

Rubberchikken wrote: »

these things only show how toothless Tusla and the dept overseeing it is.

if a person can open and run an establishment for 14 months before being 'forced' to register, where tge name keeps changing, where the owner has been found liable for leaving a kid behind on an outing etc, it shows what a shambles the system is.

i wont be watching it. don't have rte. wouldnt anyway tbh. this crap is just a cheap.programme to make for rte. guaranteed to produce watet cooler chat and outrage and will then die down again

Fair play to RTE for acting on parents complaints . Then complaing to Tusla wasn’t going to get them anywhere

LirW

mikeym wrote: »

I wonder did the parents send their kids into that place after watching the programme?

Apparently crèches in the area got bombarded with calls enquiring about a place for their kid.

Our crèche this morning (it's in Gorey) was ridiculously quiet today and I dropped my sprog in quite late today, maybe a coincidence, maybe a lot of stressed out parents?

Gatling

Remember giraffe is still going strong after the previous prime time expose

branie2

I'm glad the Gardai are looking into it

Alice1

Heard Brian Lee (Tusla) this morning on the radio and it certainly sounds like they are indeed toothless.

JP Liz V1

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not so sure anything I saw last night would meet the criminal threshold, as unpleasant as some of it was to watch.

neglect and abuse?

feargale

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

neglect and abuse?

Add to that encouraging staff to deceive inspectors.

I am sick and tired of fine words from politicians and others. In the past we have seen light sentences, inspections followed by requests for rectification which have been ignored, and wonderful speeches in the Dàil, and so the merry go round continues. This will only begin to resolve itself when there are vigorous prosecutions and stiff prison sentences followed by closure orders. In the long term (not too long) the state must take over responsibility for creches and also nursing homes. It is intolerable that such institutions can be run by people who far too often allow profit to trump social responsibility.
In this country every thing can be spot on for the frills, Ryder Cup, visits to Doonbeg by foreign potentates etc. especially if the tv cameras are focused on the situation. But we just can't do it in matters of life and death.This problem could be solved overnight if the will existed, but like so much else here we mustn't upset vested interests. Tiny children on the other hand don't count.

iamwhoiam

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

neglect and abuse?

Endangering babies by blocking fire exits

If I was the parent of that baby being held down I'd be in a cell right now awaiting trial after seeing that. We've been lucky in terms of how we work and grandparents with number 2 and I was at home for number 1( a recession/crash baby ) . Must be hard for folks who have to rely on the creche seeing that last night.

acronym Chilli

Boggles wrote: »

Profit after wages is an arbitrary bullshít number.

Not really. What they quoted was "profit" which is pretty clear: income minus expenses.

The reference to wages to me is a reminder that the Daveys had also taken salaries from the business. So Anne is both an owner/shareholder (meaning beneficiary of retained profits) and a crèche manager with a salary (which forms part of the expenses)

lola85

feargale wrote: »

Add to that encouraging staff to deceive inspectors.

I am sick and tired of fine words from politicians and others. In the past we have seen light sentences, inspections followed by requests for rectification which have been ignored, and wonderful speeches in the Dàil, and so the merry go round continues. This will only begin to resolve itself when there are vigorous prosecutions and stiff prison sentences followed by closure orders. In the long term (not too long) the state must take over responsibility for creches and also nursing homes. It is intolerable that such institutions can be run by people who far too often allow profit to trump social responsibility.
In this country every thing can be spot on for the frills, Ryder Cup, visits to Doonbeg by foreign potentates etc. especially if the tv cameras are focused on the situation. But we just can't do it in matters of life and death.This problem could be solved overnight if the will existed, but like so much else here we mustn't upset vested interests. Tiny children don't count.

Excellent point.

rob316

Watched that rte thing on the creches can't say I'm that surprised, when you trust your child's care into the hands of private businesses who's sole purpose is profit. We have no idea what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to the most vunerable that can't speak out whether it's kids or the elderly.

Tusla is an absolute joke, what is their purpose? You can break regulations over and over again and not be shut down while you can continue to expand your childcare empire.

Zero tolerance approach needed in regards to enforcement of regulations.

Boggles

acronym Chilli wrote: »

Not really. What they quoted was "profit" which is pretty clear: income minus expenses.

Nonsense, they clearly stated it was profit after wages which is an arbitrary bullshít number.

They had access to the companies filings, they could have easily given us the net profit over the past 5 years.

It's disingenuous and dishonest.

A business like a créche especially in Dublin would have far more hefty expenses than just wages.

skinny90

Boggles wrote: »

Nonsense, they clearly stated it was profit after wages which is an arbitrary bullshít number.

They had access to the companies filings, they could have easily given us the net profit over the past 5 years.

It's disingenuous and dishonest.

A business like a créche especially in Dublin would have far more hefty expenses than just wages.

So what? The figures be sound disingenuous and dishonest but it does not justify the owners decision to run a crèche the way it was seen in the document.

This owner is a pure and utter cowboy who has a clear disregard for those babies and kids all for shaving down on her own day to day costs