It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The mum said: "She was young, smartly dressed, tanned, wore a wedding ring and appeared genuine. She knew I had a baby girl. I asked what the complaint was about but she refused to tell me. The woman asked to see where my daughter slept and asked all sorts of questions about me, my partner and the baby. She then asked if she could examine my daughter. She didn't undress her but checked her arms, legs and stomach. She was very professional. She said the complaint was probably bogus but she would have to return in seven days. If it wasn't for my mum and grandmother becoming suspicious about the visit when I told them about it, and then finding out that she was bogus, then I would have let her back into my house if she returned. God knows what could have happened."
They explained that they had attended to inspect the family's child, following information received on the family. They asked to examine the child and checked over their arms and legs. The two women also looked around the property, checked the child's bedroom and inspected the family's fridge. But Greenwich Social Services had no record of an inspection. The two suspects left without providing any contact details or paperwork relating to the visit on 11 February.
Originally posted by Maxatoria
sounds like a great way to grade a person to see if they are worth robbing, check the house out and make a note of whats where such as tv's etc/contents of out houses etc then visit the fridge to see what sort of people they are financially as some people pretend to be poor but will spend a fortune on food and while they wont get done over a week later they will get a visit or two from a few people in the middle of the night armed with more info than they should