In particular, he picks up on this comment, which I reproduce in full.
The NSPCC is an organization due a bigger looking-at than it gets, but it is always difficult as it is held in particular public affection.
It's underlying agenda is rather nasty; it sees parents in general and fathers in particular as the biggest danger to children. The remedy, of course, being more money to the NSPCC, and greater state interference in the family.
In practice the NSPCC doesn't do as much hands-on preventative support as you might imagine; it tends to keep its money for lobbying. As it can always claim 'confidentiality' we never really see any identified children saying 'the NSPCC helped my dad get off drugs, my mum to recover from a breakdown, and kept my family together by paying for home carer to look after my disabled brother.' Instead, there is always the claim, but never the proof, that they are 'preventing abuse'.
As we have seen in cases such as Climbie the NSPCC can't be bothered to do actual work for the money. It is so much easier to blame the Social Services department and in subsequent enquiries they usually escape examination because people are asking where the tax money went, not 'how come these tin-rattling tossers are still claiming charitable status?'
They also waste stupid amounts of money on their anti-smacking campaign, which has less to do with protecting children than trying to demonize parents. What I resent most about that campaign is that it brings out some deeply peculiar people on both sides and tries to drag in to public law that which should be a matter for the parents involved and nobody else.
I agree with every word; anyone who has read Private Eye with any regularity over the last few years knows that a vast amount of charities' money now goes on lobbying rather than actually doing any work. This is why, of course, we have so many bastard fucking charities recommending yet more restrictions on our everyday lives: believe me when I say that I view them as being every bit as dangerous—and, in some cases, more so—as the authoritarian fuckwits who nominally rule us.
Because, y'see, we can't vote these dangerous charitable arbiters of our behaviour out of office every four years. And as MPs increasingly look to the media and "focus groups" to mnake policy, rather than principles of proportionality and liberty, the hysteria whipped up by these charities becomes ever more dangerous.
Do not give your money to them. Do not help them. Do not encourage them, do not give them your old clothes, do not volunteer for them. The only pressure that we can bring to bear on charities is that of the market. And the message should be simple: stop lobbying and instead use the money towards helping those whom you were set up to aid in the first place.
As an illustration, here's Notsaussure's personal anecdote.
I fell out with the NSPCC in a big way getting of for 20 years ago when the ‘satanic ritual abuse‘ débâcle really got going. It sounded distinctly fishy to me and then I read Rosie Waterhouse’s classic article on the subject in the Independent on Sunday, which pretty much crystallised my concerns. Strangely enough, I can even remember where I was when I read the article; it made that much impression on me.
The NSPCC, it may be remembered, had been pretty vocal in helping stir up the, quite literal, witch-hunt. Since, at the time, I regularly contributed to the NSPCC, I thought I’d drop them a line asking why they’d been using my money to such mischievous effect. This was, I recall noting to them, particularly galling at a time when systematic abuse in various children’s homes was coming to light. It was, I reasoned, inconceivable that the NSPCC hadn’t received complaints from any of the children on the receiving end of this abuse, so how come they were apparently ignoring actual abuse and, instead, starting up wild-goose chases to disastrous effect?
The reply I received was so breath-taking in its cynicism that it shook even me. Yes, apparently they’d had their doubts about this ritual abuse malarkey but I had to realise that they did an awful lot of very necessary work for children, this costs money, and tabloid bandwagons are a very good way of raising much-needed funds. They rather ducked the question about why they’d failed to spot what was going on in various children’s homes over the years, and hoped they could count on my continued support.
People will perhaps not be surprised to learn that this hope proved misplaced.
Let me make it clear that the damage done to those children, and the parents from whose arms they were ripped, and who were placed in the oh-so-tender care of the state for years is almost incalculable. It certainly counts as abuse and, I believe, the parents and children have since sued the government.
And all of this was supported by the NSPCC so that they could go on a massive fund-raising drive. This isn't mere cynicism: in my book it counts as being pretty close to pure evil. Which is why the NSPCC has never, and will never, receive a penny from me. I will not visit their shops, I will not aid them in any way. There are many charities whose methods and activities I consider to be deeply suspect, but the NSPCC is a fucking shitty organisation that should be bankrupted for its active complicity in the witch hunts.
Boycott the NSPCC. They are the cuntiest cunts in all of cuntdom and their officers should be taken out, flogged through the streets of London, and then branded with the names of all of those children and families whose lives they helped to ruin.
And this should be done out of revenge, but also to stop the inevitable restrictions that they will persuade the government to force upon us. Cameron wants to facilitate the "third sector"; but these are the kind of utter bastards that he wants to give more power to.
Over my dead body.