Mental health Charities and NAS, created an epidemic of ‘autism’, and ‘mental illness’ by ever more extensive definitions of ‘autism’ and ‘mental disorders’ now 372.
The NSPCC created an epidemic of child ‘abuse’, by researching, and campaigning for ever more extensive definitions of ‘abuse’.
And by doing so, built a multimillion pound, tax free business empire,
its ‘charitable’ objectives drawn as widely as possible
– ‘preventing the public and private wrongs of children and the corruption of their morals’
NSPCC as an old trusted brand, with an advertising, sought by media income of 90 million in 2003 , must be trusted and supported.
Therefore, the perfect tool for governments’ ever more invasive child ‘protection’ feeding a multibillion pound fostering and adoption industry , now ‘protecting’ and ‘parenting’ 1% of UK children.
Allegations of ‘abuse’ are also the perfect tools to control every aspect of education, family life and social behaviour.
In 2008 a Labour Advisory Group on Campaigning and the Voluntary Sector, considered charities’ political influence
“as a way of addressing the ‘democratic deficit’ in the country”, as people trusted them [charities] more than politicians”.
NSPCC has capitalised on its political, unelected power, extending ‘abuse’ to neglect, an even more subjective, expansive concept that satisfies the threshold criteria for State intervention into a family, with 80% of successful care orders based on ‘neglect’.
NSPCC’s multimillion pound, tax free empire is very lucrative, raising millions from campaigns alone, its CO and managers paid over £120,000 over 10 years ago.
But, the crucial question to achieve their charitable purpose is,
has the NSPCC reduced abuse ?
Apparently not, by their own advertising and record numbers in care.
So, no outcomes for billions, just increased ‘abuse’.
NSPCC does no research or exposure of abuse and neglect in State care .
No research into adoption breakdowns and effects of adoption.
Or in State fostering, where there is an average of 20 + different placements with strangers and deracination from family, locality and friends for ever.
Nor were they involved in the fifteen years of rapes of 14,000+ children in Rotherham alone, the number nationally, unknown.
Nor do they support the 10,000 children annually missing from care( many never found) groomed, abused and raped and now used as drug mules….
deaths from restraint and over medication and suicide in State detention, hospitals, schools and community living
Victoria Climbe tortured and killed by approved foster parent, was referred to an NSPCC centre. seven months before her death, but this referral was not dealt with for months, and then marked with ‘no further action’.
Facts it appears the charity tried via an 80,000 barrister , to justify to the Laming Enquiry.
At the time it raised 250 million from its ‘Full Stop’ campaign which did not prevent Baby’s Peter’s horrific torture and death and the many, many unknown in State care like Thomas Rawnsley and George Werb.
The NSPCC has been a campaigning organisation since 1884, over half it’s 148.64 million spend is on non direct child services.
It’s ‘Full Stop’ campaign raised over £250 million, but there is little evidence as to how this money helped to stop child abuse, as nothing new has been added to NSPCC services, which still consist of family referral centres, 16 of which were closed down after this appeal, and phone help lines, which refer people to overstretched social services departments.
It did not reinstate the NSPCC home inspectors, abandoned in the 1970’s, who might have been an independent voice for Baby Peter, or Victoria Climbe.
Might not the use of such vast amounts of money, with it’s consequential unfettered, unaccountable power to change public perceptions of abuse and it’s role in society, be actually contributing to society’s problems?
The NSPCC documented allegations of Satanic ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of a survey of 66 child protection teams , 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse
An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic abuse, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.
The NSPCC then published Satanic Indicators to social services , which were blamed for social workers panicking and making false accusations of sexually abusing children., in Rochdale twenty children were taken from their homes.
The allegations were later found to be false.
The case was the subject of a BBC documentary which featured recordings of the interviews made by NSPCC social workers, revealing that flawed techniques and leading questions were used to gain evidence of abuse from the children.
The documentary claimed that the social services were wrongly convinced, by organisations such as the NSPCC, that abuse was occurring .and so rife, that they made allegations before any evidence was considered.
NSPCC’s high profile, expensive Saatchi and Saatchi campaign, ‘Stranger Danger’, resulted in 78% of parents reporting that fear of strangers stopped their children playing outside, and it supported the Authority’s creat11 million adults, who have regular contact with children, being forced to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
After NSPCC campaigns in schools and clubs, it led to 11 million adults, who have regular contact with children, being forced to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Despite public furore.
NSPCC’s campaign, ‘Someone to Turn To’, encouraged children to talk to people outside their family about their anxieties, undermining family relationships, and appear to have contributed to the 25% increase in care orders based ’emotional abuse’ in 2008 making a 50% over the previous ten years, distracting time and resources from actual physical, sexual harm and death.
In 2009 the NSPCC helped set up Local Children’s Trusts, but an Audit Commission reported the alack of clarity as to their role, unaccountability, and the time wasted on setting up their structures and procedures hampered delivery of children services.
The NSPCC believe hitting a child is wrong, whatever the circumstances, and are determined that even a smack, which does not produce a mark is criminalised.
Despite the lack of hard evidence to show a link between smacking and serious physical abuse.
This dogmatic and absolutist approach was supported by the labour government think tank, The Institute for Public Policy Research.
Research supporting the danger of the activity to be outlawed appears in the media, ‘Smacking can turn Children into Criminals’,’ ‘Smacking produces low Intelligence’. Even the language used is perniciously diluted, the definition of corporal punishment (beatings and hitting with an object), now includes any form of physical tap, if corrective.
However, research, based not on restricted numbers, but the population of Sweden, who introduced a smacking ban in 1979, showing a 489% increase in criminal physical child abuse prosecutions from 1981-1994, increasing more rapidly amongst those, who were brought up after the law against smacking was introduced, is ignored.
Would such a ban benefit a child, whose parents would be criminalised, and who then might be processed by an overworked, under resourced care system?
The NSPCC opposed the placing of a statutory presumption of contact with a non resident parent, in the Adoption and Children Act 2004, as detrimental to a child’s welfare, on the basis that it could ultimately threaten the safety of the child, in support, it cited evidence that 29 children over the past 10 years had been killed on contact visits, but chose to ignore its’ own research showing 800 children, during the same period had actually been killed by resident parents, and children were more likely to suffer violence from female carers.
The lack of a presumption of contact may have contributed to the 289 applications by non resident parents, forced to fight through the courts to merely have contact with their own children, and the consequential emotional abuse of children, deprived of any contact with a parent and their inevitable feelings of abandonment.
Women’s Aid in2009 increased their campaigning and educating activities in support of the government’s initiative to end domestic violence.
They joined forces with the NSPCC, to produce an almost unstoppable political force to lobby government to extend the definition of ‘harm’ in the Children’s Act 1989, to include ‘impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another’.
As a consequence ‘Harm’, for the purposes of satisfying the threshold criteria in care proceedings, is statutorily diluted, under the vague definition of ‘ill –treatment’, which Women’s Aid literature states can include such nebulous concepts, as the ‘emotional or financial abuse of another’.
In June the NSPCC handed a petition to the Children’s Minster to protect children, who live with domestic violence, supported by media headlines, ’Children kept awake by the sounds of domestic violence’, and supporting research that this affects one in twelve children.
Already nearly a third of all care applications were then made on the grounds of emotional abuse, due to domestic violence, which Women’s Aid maintains has a more devastating effect than a physical assault.
NSPCC want to be the definitive voice, leaders on abuse, despite no public debate or vote and so in 2016, they launched a web based ‘Impact and Evidence’ Hub designed to promote and make accessible its research evidence. The hub contained sections on:
Research and evaluation reports.
Information about how evaluations were carried out by the NSPCC, including information about the outcome measures used.
A series of blog articles recounting the experiences of professionals in running research articles and producing evidence.
Information about the organisation’s Research Ethics Committee and the process of ethical review to which research projects needed to be subject.
An internal validation execise-
Research and evidence reports produced by the NSPCC include evaluations of:
A video interaction guidance intervention with families where initial concerns about neglect have been noted.
To justify ITS stance on neglect
A therapeutic intervention for children affected by sexual abuse and their carers.
(Capitalising on the Rotherham’Rochdale abuse, scandals it did nothing to avoid.)
a therapeutic intervention for children affected by sexual abuse and their carers.
(Capitalising on the Rotherham’Rochdale abuse scandals it did nothing to avoid).
An intervention designed to support infant mental health.
(Allowing babies and infaats to be medicated on antidepressants etc and removed to State care.)
An early intervention programme designed to enhance a mother’s relationship with her baby.[4(2]
(To define what that relationship is and class as abuse mother’s who do not meet its criteria to promote even more baby removal)
A parenting programme helping fathers change their behaviour after domestic abuse.
An intervention helping mothers rebuild relationships with their children after domestic abuse.
(Survellience of parents after child removal from abuse likely to never be allowed to parent.)