West Hampstead Nursery Current Child Abuse Case (Unconnected to the School below). 

Christchurch School, Hampstead

Putting the past behind it:

Christ Church School
Christchurch Hill
Hampstead London
NW3 1JH
Telephone: 020 7435 1361
Fax: 020 7794 5148
E: admin@cchurchnw3.camden.sch.uk

Ofsted report – November 2023 Outstanding

See:  

Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us"

Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us": Search results for Hampstead

Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us"

Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us"

The following Evening Standard article poses a question but doesn't fully answer it because it does not have the investigatory powers to do so. Only parental awareness and scepticism are guarantors of child safety and protection from those who might do them harm. Their vulnerability is the very ingredient that makes them more of a target, particularly by men. This should be a given. It is questionable whether it is ever safe to leave young children alone with men who are not their parents. This is not to say women can also on occasions, be responsible for abuse, as criminal prosecutions have proved. They are however less likely. 

Rigorous systems unfortunately need to be in place to prevent it, including camera monitoring and importantly always taking children's reports a nd accounts seriously. The article raises questions regarding the profit motive of the company and the culture it produces. Also the effectiveness of the regulatory systems in place to prevent unsuitable persons being appointed or unacceptable practices happening. However a couple more questions occur to me.

For example how was it possible Mr Chan could be employed and his proclivities overlooked? And how was it possible he could do what he did in such a confined space without concerns being raised by other staff members? This obviously raises a question of wider involvement, negligence or complicity. In these matters the public is reliant on the effectiveness of both Ofsted and police investigations. And of course it raises questions as to the 247 other 'Bright Horizon' locations in Britain.

Whether the fact that it occurred in the area of West Hampstead, the location of perhaps one of the most notorious cases of alleged child sexual abuse, with 'satanic ritual' connotations in an educational setting, is significant or connected is not discussed. In that case in 2015, the convincing claims of abuse to parents, others and even under police questioning, were unrealistically totally dismissed as fantasy. No effective steps were taken to secure the scene, interview the accused or seize electronic equipment that might have either substantiated or negated the claims. 

In that case, nothing can explain why the principal accused was warned by the police and not even interviewed under caution, or why shamefully the innocent mother became the target of police and courts, placing the children permanently with the accused father. It is also perhaps worth noting the American connection:  'Bright Horizons' is an American based international for-profit conglomerate; in the Gareeva/Dearman case, the father moved to America, taking the children (now roughly 18 and 20) with him. No one could reasonably conclude other than in that case there was an unjust and despicable state cover-up. The question remains in this latest case, as the Evening Standard poses, how far does the corrupt practice extend?  In other words, do 'Bright Horizons' involve ominous dark clouds?

Evening Standard article (excerpt):

How far does the nursery abuse scandal really go?

How far does the nursery abuse scandal really go?

Vincent Chan (Metropolitan Police/PA) (PA Media)

Story by Charlotte Lytton  Evening Standard.  

17th October, 2026

It was the headline that made every parent’s blood run cold. In February, nursery worker Vincent Chan admitted 56 charges including sexual assault by penetration and possession of indecent images of the children in his care at the West Hampstead branch of the American multi-national childcare provider Bright Horizons.

The offences had been filmed over the course of seven years, adding to Chan’s collection of at least 26,000 indecent images, which included clips of children being raped. It was, according to the Metropolitan Police, “one of the most harrowing and complex child sexual abuse investigations” it has ever taken on.

While a Bright Horizons spokesperson called this “an appalling breach of trust by one individual”, a catalogue of safeguarding failures at outposts both in the UK and the US suggest that their issues go beyond one bad apple.

A number of families are now hoping that there will be criminal action taken against the nursery, whose “safeguarding failures created the perfect hunting ground for a predator”, a statement released by their lawyers read.

That includes Sam Gagen*, whose son Hugh*, then three, began describing Chan as “a naughty guy” three years ago.

Hugh had previously adored 45-year-old Chan, whose illustration skills had made him a hit among the young children in his care. But there came a marked shift, Sam says. Hugh was no longer excited to go to nursery and see his friends. One morning, when Sam shouted to his wife at the other end of their flat, their son cowered in the corner saying “‘Daddy, Daddy, please don’t be like Vince.’”

“I was like, what the f***?” Sam recalls. “Then he said: ‘Vince is mean, Vince hurts people.’”

The Gagens heard of Chan’s crimes via an email from the police. “The first reaction [was] a bit of disbelief, like: ‘Oh my God, how could this happen? Is this true?’ It feels like some television drama that you never imagined you’d ever be involved in,” Sam says. 

There was anger too, because they had already raised concerns about Chan — whom they considered “weird” — to senior Bright Horizons staff, which were waved away as “just Vince being Vince”. Yet “if anyone was going to do anything to the kids, it would have been him”. Sam and his wife, Cleo*, now believe that Hugh “at very least witnessed violent or sexual abuse,” and “may well have been the victim of some of that [sexual abuse]”.