Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The NSPCC: burn the witch!

Notsaussure picks up on my post about the NSPCC's "kiddies are being harmed on the internet" comment and adds to it in no small measure.

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.


Mark said...

Totally agree.

Even if they were not totally evil, the problem is that charities wwant to raise money.

The maths is simple, if we can employ somebody at £20,000 a year who brings in £30,000 in donations we are ahead of the game. So once you chuck in other overheads of fund-raising, it is hardly surprising that 80%-plus of their money just goes on fund-raising.

Anybody brave enough to call for an end to tax breaks for charities?

Anonymous said...

The real problem with the Child Protection Industry and those who live off it is they actually hurt children.

It works like this. The number of people who do the actual *work* with children and their families is actually finite, and pretty small.

The number of people who make a living out of it but don't actually go near a child or family is much greater and includes virtually the entire NSPCC for example, an organisation that does virtually nothing for children at all.

That finite number of people (often Child Social Workers) that work with Children and/or Families have a limited amount of time, which has to be divided between the cases they have assigned to them.

Unfortunately since things like Lauren Wright and Victoria Climbie, discretion and common sense has been removed (because people are human beings and sometimes get it majorly wrong).

The incompetents have made it so that every query has to be investigated and documented in triplicate (our local SSD forms have to be seen to be believed, and that's just the ones you fill in normally).

This has two side effects.

Firstly, the amount of time spent with the child and/or their family plummets, as the worker is under pressure to fill in forms to cover their backs and "more importantly" (to them) those of their managers.

As with CRB checks (which don't work), the claim is this will protect children ; it doesn't it protects the bureaucracy by giving it paper to wave to offload the blame when something goes wrong.

Secondly, the over-diagnosis of abuse, seeing it around every corner, and witch-hunts (Saussure is partly incorrect, in that the Children's Home witch-hunt is every bit as bad as that of the Satanic Abusers, it's just less obviously stupid) means that the real cases are lost in the noise.

A typical "Child Worker" usually has high numbers of cases to work with, mostly trivia or nonsense, and cannot prioritise by ignoring the idiocies because they are not allowed to.

Thus those cases which require serious amounts of input get less actual useful time.

Thus the incidence of abuse actually increases.

(There is a parallel to all of this in the Police Federation statements, which cause crime to get worse for similar, but not identical reasons.).

It is a cast iron rule in my experience that anyone who bangs on about "think of the children" and variations thereof has no interest in the children at all, except as a system for increasing their own or their organisations power, money and prestige.

Likewise, "I'm only doing it for the children" is actually about suppressing discussion of actually what the speaker is doing, the argument being "if you don't agree with what I'm doing you support child abuse".

This same argument was used to support Satanic Abuse (1980-95) and its replacement Care Home Abuse (1995-date).

All this will become much worse soon, as the new "Children's database", which will throw up warning flags whenever something happens (you aren't getting your five a day and you bumped your head once, we must investigate ; no the state should f--- off as it's the world most useless parent ; the idea of the modern "Care Home" involving "Care" is ridiculous. Tracey Beaker it isn't).

xoggoth said...

Every charity seems to be politicised. One I do an occasional bit of voluntarily work for started getting an EU Grant. We used to help out people on a need basis or otherwise roughly in the order they contacted us but after the grant it all became target driven, how many asylum seekers we helped, how many single mothers etc etc. If it didn't help keep me fit I dont think I'd bother any more.

David B. Wildgoose said...

I gave up on the NSPCC when they started describing Grammar Schools as a form of child abuse and demanding that the Government scrap them.

Yes, you read that correctly.

I used to give them money. Not any more. Tossers.

jonathan said...

The 1989 Children Act gives the NSPCC statutory powers to protect children at risk – the only UK charity with this status.

I find this very worrying.

BTW, I have been boycotting the NSPCC for years - it makes for some awkward moments when I am asked for sponsorship and have to refuse friends, family and colleagues.

Anonymous said...

What we need to do is to take babies at birth straight into state care - thus protecting them from evil parents.

other said...

Some of these "charities" don't even raise enough donations to exist in the first place.

As xoggoth point out the EU can give grants. Another way is by donations from the National Lottery (no wonder Branson never got to run it, check out the Gtech connections to the Bush family) and BBC's Red Nose/Comic Relief sham.

Just another way of siphoning off taxpayers money and using it for NWO control purposes.

Not Saussure said...

Thanks for the link, DK. A couple of points in response to some of the comments, if I may.

Anonymous 5.20pm is of the view that I'm partly incorrect, in that the Children's Home witch-hunt is every bit as bad as that of the Satanic Abusers. Well, I agree that it is, but I wasn't trying to make any general point about Children's Homes. Rather, my allusion was to a few very well documented cases of abuse in Leicestershire and North Wales and to an, if not actually abusive, certainly an humiliating and repressive regime in Staffordshire Children's Homes that would give anyone cause for concern.

Whether or not it was later justified, as a result of these particular cases, for various agencies to canvass all the former residents of these places with a view to launching either criminal or civil actions, is quite another matter.

However, it's indisputable that some dreadful things had been going on in particular places over the years, and my complaint was that it's inconceivable that none of this had come to the ears of the NSPCC.

Yet they'd apparently done nothing of use when confronted with actual complaints but now here they were telling us that we had to believe in 'recovered memories' of abuse, no matter how apparently fantastical, since not to believe in them was collusion with the monstrous and wide-spread abuse that had just been uncovered by this wonderful new technique that had just been discovered.

That was the cause of my annoyance; actual complaints had gone unheard but now the failure to complain was, apparently, a significant indicator in itself either of intimidation or psychological damage.

Mark (charities there to raise money): agreed, and the NSPCC took this to extraordinary ends. At about the same time as my dispute with them, my then partner -- who also regularly contributed -- received a phone call one evening from them asking if she'd be prepared to increase her monthly standing order. On being told it was inconvenient to discuss the matter, since we were about to sit down to dinner, the caller subjected her to a lecture to the effect that the NSPCC's work was incredibly important, and here were some graphic and distressing examples of why, and anyone who'd rather eat dinner than agree, this minute, to increase the regular donation they could clearly afford must be a heartless and callous bitch indeed.

She'd just finished explaining this to me, having told the caller to fuck off (my partner was a woman who rarely swore, even at me), when the phone rang again.

It was the previous caller's supervisor. She wasn't phoning to apologise; she just wanted to explain that they were testing a new technique of persuading regular donors to increase their contributions by cold-calling them and subjecting them to a variety of different pitches -- soft sell, medium sell and hard sell. My partner had just been subjected to the hard sell, and what did she make of it?

Since I do not like to hear a woman swear, at this point I suggested I'd adjourn to the pub, where my partner could join me later when she'd finished, and we'd go on to dinner on the proceeds of her cancelled subscription.

Lilith said...

I was one of those mothers who was labelled a witch and cult member in Ireland by these nutters.

Now, how did they arrive at this conclusion??

I wore Egyptian jewellery.

So, I asked who the cult member are??

Just me.!!!!

Gives a whole new meaning to cult and witches.

I best fly now- Oh I got a broomstick

Actually, I only had my gagging order lifted a week ago, so I am allowed to speak now.

The crocodile has arrived.

I am going after these evil beings now, with all my venom, and Justice is seen, to be done.!!

Anonymous said...

The nspcc are the biggest bunch of tossers in the world, i am taking them to court hopefully to sure them , all they are is ex social services who were proably found incompentent in there previous job as social workers and had enough of fucking everyones life up with social services they then decide to go to the nspcc! Ther compulsive liars best intrest of the child my arse, more like best intrest of there bank balance! they dont give a damm about the children , as a mother who has been through domestic violence am just classed as a piece of scum to them and there policy one of which they dont stick to is the biggest heap of shit i have ever read!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

We raised money for the NSPCC in college and 53% of all monnies raised went on 'admin' while the rest was spent on helping children. In other words they spent over £2000 to send us a thank you letter.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...