NSPCC 'I promise' dvd. Anyone else seen it? (non accidental injury to children)

(88 Posts)
PictureMeInThese Wed 06-Feb-13 10:19:22

I originally posted this in chat but got no response.
My sister has just a lovely new snuggly baby smile
I picked her, BIL and DN up from the hospital a few hours after she gave birth. We were waiting for her to be discharged when the mw came in and explained she'd like to show DS and BIL a DVD from the NSPCC for research (IIRC).
So we watched it. It was mostly interviews with parents of babies talking about coping mechanisms for coping with crying babies. It also showed (quite graphically) what happens to a baby when it is shaken.
Now, I think the NSPCC are great, but we were sat open mouthed after watching this.
Don't get me wrong it was a well done film done sensitively and I can see that it would be a useful resource for new parents, but DN was 4 hours old. Parents still on a high after giving birth and then being shown this. I thought the timing was completely inappropriate.
After they'd watched the dvd they had to sign a form with 'I promise' on the top. I think this was the consent for the research, but the way it was presented it felt very much like they were signing a form promising not to shake their baby.
I don't know, i just felt very uncomfortable about it. AIBU?

yaimee Wed 06-Feb-13 10:21:37

Yanbu I was unbelievably emotional after having ds and that would have upset me, I'm not sure its the time or place for it.

stargirl1701 Wed 06-Feb-13 10:22:18

Yes. We were shown it before we left the MLU with DD in Sep 2012. It is disturbing but it's meant to be. I cried, holding my newborn, watching it.

catgirl1976 Wed 06-Feb-13 10:22:59


On the one hand of course it's an important message etc, and it kind of makes sense to see parents whilst they are in the hospital instead of trying to co-ordinate home visits etc

But 4 hours after the birth sad I'd have been a wreck. The form sounds a bit odd too confused

I'd be uncomfortable even if it wasn't reasonable to be so

Sad it needed sad

Katienana Wed 06-Feb-13 10:25:19

I think that is poor timing, it could trigger pnd. Maybe it would be better as part of health visitor, or an optional pre natal education session.

CartedOff Wed 06-Feb-13 10:26:52

That sounds really messed up to me. I would have hated to have seen that hours after giving birth. The timing is all wrong.

MariusEarlobe Wed 06-Feb-13 10:27:35

Yanbu, highly inappropriate.

But then I have big issues with the new in school workshops that they are doing which ask leading questions using inexperienced volunteers who have no background history in some cases of working with children which imo will put children who are abused at risk and families who haven't done anything wrong on the radar.

thats crazy. By all means tell parents not to shake babies (although really how many babies injured in this way are harmed by people who really didnt think that shaking a baby would harm it?) but this is implying they really are on the verge of seriously harming their baby and that basically tjey are a bit shit - the baby is only 4 hours old confused

purrpurr Wed 06-Feb-13 10:28:49

God, I can't even watch the NSPCC advert with the child who has learnt not to cry as nobody comes, it kills me, I can't bear to watch it. I turn it off, I'm ashamed to say. But the fact is it's made such a mark on me that I don't NEED to see the advert to be reminded of the charity and what they do. I can recall the advert from memory.

I wouldn't be able to sit and watch a film hours after childbirth. Is it optional at all?

littleducks Wed 06-Feb-13 10:29:06

I think it is inapropriate. Perhaps it would be better to be placed in antenatal classes or as part of midwife/hv home visits (I can see the second casuing problems with equipment though).

Some people are on a high after giving birth. Some people are not, they may have only discovered medical information, had a hideous birth or just been in the 'baby blues' hormone crazy period. Either way most people are very vulnerable.

As an aside, if it is 'research' her consent showed have been obtained and the form signed first not after watching it.

Flisspaps Wed 06-Feb-13 10:29:21

Do they really think showing someone a DVD in the hours post birth is going to stop someone shaking a baby?!

Absolutely inappropriate to show it then. Perhaps making the video available online and then putting the link in the bloody awful Bounty packs would be better (but still as useless, IMO)

noblegiraffe Wed 06-Feb-13 10:30:29

I was asked if I would watch it on the post-natal ward too. I said no, and the lady said that was fine, but I did feel awkward saying no, like I didn't care about my baby.
As it was, DD is my second, DS was a non-sleeping nightmare and I figured that if I coped ok with him, I'd probably manage this one without a DVD.
The timing definitely felt wrong and intrusive.

I think it's very inappropriate, you don't know which parents have been abused as children themselves and might be particularly sensitive to this kind of thing.

I was certainly a complete wreck when I had my pfb and was very worried that someone would hurt her as it was.

sydlexic Wed 06-Feb-13 10:32:58

It does seem a bit harsh. I think there is a tendency to think those convicted of child abuse are evil people who planned and enjoyed hurting their babies when in reality they may be tired stressed and just lose it for one minute, they would never hit and so they shake their baby in frustration. I guess if it prevents just one case then that's a good thing.

ballstoit Wed 06-Feb-13 10:44:17

Marius Have you got a link or somewhere I can find out more about the programme you mentioned? I

I did some training with another organisation for work last week, and was pretty shocked at some of the leading questions they were suggesting it was okay for a volunteer to be asking...have lodged a cause for concern with their trustees.

PictureMeInThese Wed 06-Feb-13 10:47:48

I think the idea of seeing it antenatally or a bit later with the hv would be better. It was just too soon.

bubbles11 Wed 06-Feb-13 10:55:34

I do understand the comments about it being insensitive and maybe the DVD could have been more diplomatic in it's caveats (I have not seen it - but maybe something at the beginning about it being a public information broadcast and not intended at any specific individual etc?)

But I can understand why the staff did this (1) most people are booted out of the maternity ward incredibly fast after having a baby (not a good thing at all but that is how things are in 2013) if they don't show it to new parents quickly they might have left hospital by the time it is "appropriate" (2) isn't it more "pointed" for example for a health visitor to bring the dvd to someone's home? so this would be worse, better to do it in hospital (3) I agree with the above point that it is a myth that only "evil" people shake their babies - the first 4 months with a newborn especially for first time parents (especially those not supported by wider family) is a real shell shock as to how hard it is and how tiring and frustrating the endless crying can be - if there is practical advice on the DVD like "if you get frustrated leave the baby in a safe comfortable place and let them cry for a few minutes and go into another room to calm down (rather than hurt the baby)" - then that can ONLY be a good thing for new parents to hear surely??? I am all in favour.
I can understand an emotional reaction by new parents but I can see why the NSPCC propose this timing/delivery of their dvd and I think it is good (shoot me down now if you like)

MariusEarlobe Wed 06-Feb-13 10:57:37



I just really worry people who have no experience with children and little training are going to stumble in and cause big issues.

MariusEarlobe Wed 06-Feb-13 10:59:44

And I say that as someone with child protection training.

Mosman Wed 06-Feb-13 11:03:00

I have to say I stopped giving to the NSPCC as I don't like their shock tactics the people this is aimed at aren't the type that sit watching video's in ante natal wards, I'm sure the stats on little baby/child abuse are that it's usually not the father of the child but mums new boyfriend who can't stand the crying but doesn't love the child. He's unlikely to be there at that early stage.

PictureMeInThese Wed 06-Feb-13 11:21:08

'The people this is aimed at- not the type that sit watching'?
What, new parents? Do you think my DS and BIL were shown this because they were a type?
Child abuse could be done by anybody, they don't have to be a type FGS. You're making some terrible assumtions there Mosman

ICBINEG Wed 06-Feb-13 11:24:12

Agree that antenatal is the time for this. With a verbal follow up from HV post birth.

Mosman Wed 06-Feb-13 11:26:15

There are pretty accurate profiles of what a child abuser looks like, just as there are for shop lifters and even traffic offences.
The slap dash frighten the life out of everyone and reduce new parents to tears approach I think is bad form and ineffectual.

ballstoit Wed 06-Feb-13 12:12:25

Are there Mosman? Profiles of child abusers?

PictureMeInThese Wed 06-Feb-13 12:41:40

I'd love to see what they look like, I'd know who to avoid then. hmm

Mitchdafish Sat 15-Jun-13 19:11:37

I work with pg women as a yoga teacher and when I see them after some have been really upset by the DVD. A midwife is meant to counsel before and after. How many midwives have time for that?
It is optional (everything is optional!) but women feel they might get a black mark against them if they don't want to watch (like you noblegiraffe). Some women come away sobbing.
NSPCC seem to think men need to see it (men more likeley to cause head injury if I remember the research correctly)
They are doing a trial, the info is on nspcc web site.
Yes ICBINEG I agree would be better antenatally.
Some women think they are signing that they promise they will look after their baby. Which is hugely undermining.
Afaik no-one is getting feedback from women about this, to me it is akin to the Bounty thing.
I'd better go and share that elsewhere...

littlewhitebag Sat 15-Jun-13 19:22:20

I am a child protection SW and I think this is a great idea. Many babies are not injured on purpose but because parents have reached the end of their tether and reacted in an instant. Or they have not realized how their baby could be injured if mishandled. There is no 'type' of people who abuse their children. I have spent hours in children's wards with distraught parents who have harmed their children in this way.

Kat101 Sat 15-Jun-13 19:27:46

What about home births? Are the babies not deemed at risk? Or does the midwife deliver the baby then whip out a DVD and head towards your Panasonic?

And how can this be research? Would they log your details and match them to babies admitted to A&E with suspected head injuries? To see if the DVD was a deterrent?

There was a tv in the antenatal scanning waiting room graphically showing the risk of leaving your baby in the bath to go and answer the door. It gave me nightmares for weeks. If I'd had to watch a baby being shaken it would've wrecked my first few days. Surely better to have it as part of postnatal checks somehow?

Mrsrobertduvall Sat 15-Jun-13 19:30:49

I have heard some rubbish on here but Mosman's profiling comment takes the biscuits.
Do tell me what a shoplifter looks like.
And someone who parks illegally.

McNewPants2013 Sat 15-Jun-13 19:37:07


I think it is a good idea, but 4 hours after having a baby is bad timing.

GaryBarlowsPants Sat 15-Jun-13 19:46:08

Shaking is the most common form of abuse related death for babies, and children are statistically most at risk from Non Accidental Injury in the first year of life. As littlewhitebag says, many parents don't deliberately harm their children, rather get to their wits end, and lose their temper not realising how serious shaking can potentially be.
The dvd offers ways to cope with crying whilst feeling exhausted.
I totally understand how it could be distressing to watch so soon after giving birth however a similar campaign in the US showed a 47% fall in the rate of shaking over a five year period, and so I personally feel it is extremely worthwhile.
I say this as the parent of a premature baby who cried 'a lot' in her first year of life and at times, I felt completely helpless. I think a Dvd like this one would have been very helpful.
I do however think that a midwife, or other support worker should be present and trained to answer questions and counsel the parents if needed. As far as I'm aware a Maternity Assistant is present when this dvd is shown in my local hospital.

sunshinesue Sat 15-Jun-13 19:47:58

I saw it. It's very upsetting but it's meant to be and I think it was very well done. It's based on something done in the us that has drastically reduced the number of babies being shaken and injured. Whilst difficult to watch I'm glad I did. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a potential child abuser but I've no doubt this film stays with people and could just pull someone back if they were really on the edge.
to compare it to a profit making enterprise such as bounty is ludicrous.p

Mitchdafish Sat 15-Jun-13 19:52:25

Littlewhitebag and thanks for sharing your experience.
The video is acceptable if parents a) are told honestly what it is about and what it's purpose is and b) feel no pressure to agree to watch it.
I think women are not told exactly what it is about. If told 'this video talks about the stresses of looking after a newborn, some tips for handling those stresses, and shows how shaking a baby can cause serious harm or even death to a baby' then the message has got across whether people choose to watch it or not.
kat101 yes, they must match details, but what about data protection... more info on the NSPCC web site I think. Similar programme in the USA had positive results, reducing head injury. But no-one is measuring the emotional impact on the majority of parents.
Plus: the signing! Urgh.

aamia Sat 15-Jun-13 19:56:39

I think also, that they should put a card with the mumsnet website address on it, in every new mum's hand.

My DS cried endlessly with his tongue tie, all day sometimes because he was hungry, bless him, and when he fed he got too much wind and it hurt. It was posting on here, getting advice, and that magic person who said 'check him for tongue tie, this is what it looks like' that kept me sane. Other parents who said it's ok to just pop him in the Moses basket and leave him for a bit if you've checked everything, who gave tips and advice. Without them those first few weeks would have been so much harder.

nellyjelly Sat 15-Jun-13 19:58:55

The school volunteers undergo rigorous training and are well supervised.

jammiedonut Sat 15-Jun-13 20:03:13

I agree probably not the best timing but definitely a useful tool for all parents. It may seem insensitive but that euphoric period doesn't last long for some people and even a few hours of crying can cause people to behave irrationally. I didn't need a video to tell me not to shake my baby but would sure have liked advice on how to deal with the sleep deprivation and constant crying. It took my hv all of two minutes to explain that I could leave the room and count to ten to calm down but up until that point I had NO IDEA that it was acceptable to do this.
If I were a more vulnerable person I dread to think what I could have done to myself or my child, so something like this video could be massively helpful. If it only saves one child but pisses off some parents that's fine by me

sunshinesue Sat 15-Jun-13 20:04:25

Mitch, yes we were warned of distressing content and there was no pressure to watch at all. The nspcc worker came back and was available to answer questions afterwards (i watched it at my bed on a laptop) but I don't know what her specific qualifications were. I didn't like signing the pledge, that seemed unnecessary.

Sunnysummer Sat 15-Jun-13 20:14:05

Even nannying before, I never really understood the whole baby-shaking thing - I mean, sure babies cried, but I always wondered why people couldn't manage... Then I had our DS, who has suffered from reflux and volvulus and who feels like he has barely stopped crying since birth, including one memorable 24 hour period where he cried for a total of 9 hours and slept for 8. My baby is so loved and so wanted and we have masses of support... And yet, there have still been times where I am so exhausted and fed up that I've felt about 2 screams away from leaving him on a church porch (or much worse). At times like these, I am so full of admiration for people in much more challenging positions (from unsupported teen parents to fed-up caregivers on minimum wage) who manage it, and so much sadness and sympathy for those who break.

The research in the US showed a dramatic impact of this promise (can anyone link to it? I'm a tech numpty and on my phone so cannot)... So, although the timing was bad, this is a really important message for the people who need to hear it, and frankly isn't going to permanently scar the ones who don't.

Snazzywaitingforsummer Sat 15-Jun-13 20:23:33

The signing a pledge seems a bit daft. What are they going to do, whip it out in court after a shaking incident and say 'and what's even worse, s/he'd promised not to!'

Re Mosman's comments - 'there's a profile' is overreaching but there was a pattern of mums' boyfriends abusing children when I worked with a service dealing with related issues, and as she says, they won't have watched the video, most likely.

pleiadianpony Sat 15-Jun-13 20:27:10

My God! I am actually close to tears thinking I might get subjected to this straight after I give birth.

AND I am trained in Child Protection. I can of course see the point but I think that there are probably better ways of giving this message to parents. Better timed ways.

Two big sticks in the hospital bag then.... one for the Bounty Lady, one for the NCPCC lady...

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 15-Jun-13 20:27:48

You would be surprised at the amount of people who don't know about shaken baby syndrome, mainly idiots who think its ok to be chucking nearly newborns around because they are playing and that apparently it will toughen the baby up.

Videos like that would certainly help with that.

BridgetBidet Sat 15-Jun-13 20:41:26

I'm going to try and look this up so bear with me - but I remember reading some research on this a while back and the conclusion was that if men watched this video it drastically reduced the rate of shaking injuries in babies. It was specifically men it was aimed at though, don't know why they would make the mother watch it bearing that in mind and given that she has just given birth. I think the idea is that it was going to be targeted at high risk couples.

If they have managed to prove that this lowers the rate of these injuries to babies then surely it's worth it?

Twattybollocks Sat 15-Jun-13 20:43:40

I think it's a good thing but maybe at the 5 day midwife visit when the heel prick is done rather than immediately after birth. Like others on here, before I had kids I could not understand how anyone could shake a baby, but now as a seasoned mum of 3 I openly admit that there have been many many times when I have had to put them in the cot, shut the door, and go and have a cigarette to calm myself down.

BridgetBidet Sat 15-Jun-13 20:47:31

Yeah, just found this article in the Guardian:


"There has been somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 55% reduction in comparison with the rate before it started – which is about 40% lower than incidence rates in the UK and other places in the US," said Dias. "It came down and it stayed down even during the recession."

Given that level of reduction in injuries I think that a few parents being a bit upset is an okay price to pay to avoid dead or brain damaged babies.

sunshinesue Sat 15-Jun-13 20:55:13

Bridget, I was told it was deliberately not targeted at anyone in particular so as to avoid any stigma associated with watching it. They made a point of inviting everyone to watch. It would be just awful if they selected just a few "high risk" couples. Can you imagine being tagged as a potential child abuser before you'd even taken your baby home?

Fakebook Sat 15-Jun-13 20:58:09

I think it's a good idea. Infact I think there should be a compulsory parent class or DVD for new parents teaching them about following instincts and ways to calm your baby.

Maybe 4 hours after birth is too early, but they obviously wanted them to watch it before they took the baby home. It can only take one bout of crying and a tired parent for shaking to happen.

Fillyjonk75 Sat 15-Jun-13 20:59:31

I just find myself really disliking the NSPCC at times. I think I'd have ripped up the form in front of whoever gave it to me and have given the DVD back if I knew what was in it.

Yonilovesboni Sat 15-Jun-13 21:13:53

I remember this. I said I didn't want to watch it, and was told I wouldn't be discharged or allowed to take my baby if I didn't watch and sign the form! Just what I wanted a couple of hours after birth.hmm

McNewPants2013 Sat 15-Jun-13 21:22:35

Perhaps the best time is before the baby is born.

why don't they show it in antenatal classes?

can you view it online?

singingmum Sat 15-Jun-13 22:17:52

Yet another reason I will never support the NSPCC. They take everything to the greatest extreme and I can guarantee that Home educators like my self will never be involved in any of their so called child protection talks or anything else. They have targeted us as a group and made many people I have spoken with feel like crap. They have used inflated and falsified information to bully parents who chose differently to what they believe to be the right way to raise a child.
Has anyone listened to the wording of actors in their adverts when supposedly saying things that show abuse ie.'Your doing my head in now do as your told or else'
I'm quite sure they believe that children should not be taught that there are consequences to bad behaviour and that all parents are evil sorry but that's how they feel.
I know that they provide a service but they are now going to far. Yes parents should be taught that there are ways to handle a grissly baby but there are better ways that don't make a parent feel bad before they've really gotten started

BridgetBidet Sat 15-Jun-13 22:20:03

SunshineSue I think that I read some research from another country where the scheme was used and in that case it was targeted, but you know more about it here than I do so I don't doubt you're correct. I think that it was risk factors like age, worklessness, the man in the house not being the biological father.

I think the reason why they can't just show it in antenatal classes is because those who are the highest risk are probably the least likely to attend antenatal classes, and men don't always necessarily attend these classes with their partner. Plus in some cases the man who's there during the pregnancy might not be the man who's there when the mother goes home if relationships are shaky.

I think if it's done at the hospital they can be fairly certain that the people they are getting to watch it will be the people who will be at home with the baby in the first weeks of it's life.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 15-Jun-13 22:20:20

I've never even had the offer to watch it and I had a baby last year and several before that

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 15-Jun-13 22:25:36

There is not and nor will there ever be a type that is more likely to harm a child.

The only thing that could ever be assessed would be a type who was more likely to get found out.

The volunteers that work for the ChildLine Schools Service are trained and work alongside staff. The object of the service is also not to try to find problems by asking questions about children's home lives, but to teach all children about the signs of abuse so that they can recognise it if it is happening to them or to someone they know, and so that they can then make their own decisions about what to do. It also obviously informs them about ChildLine, which is a service with that goal primarily in mind (children making their own decisions) and as such it has the highest confidentiality threshold of any service which works with children.

singingmum, I work and volunteer for ChildLine (part of the NSPCC) and I can assure you that I don't think all parents are evil. Nor does anyone I've ever worked alongside. I do think many parents are busy, a minority are ill-equipped to be parents and a very small minority should not ever have been parents. Sadly, I speak to the children of that latter group far more frequently than most people because they are the ones that call us a lot.

The problem is that often you have to impose restrictions on or irritate a big group of people in order to protect others from the actions of a minority. Take for example seatbelt laws - the vast majority of us would agree it's far safer for ourselves and others to wear them, but it's still a law because it gives the idiots who think they are somehow indestructible an incentive to wear them (the avoidance of punishment).

If watching a DVD or an advert annoys or upsets lots of people, but it actually gets through to those who may otherwise be in the position where they hurt their child and it therefore protects that vulnerable child, I honestly think it's an okay price to pay. An adult will feel a bit shit for a while, but they'll live. A shaken baby might not. If it's been proven to have some impact, then I'm all for it.

plinkyplonks Sun 16-Jun-13 04:58:24

Straight after birth is completely the wrong time to show it.

Glitterandglue - nice to see you passing judgement on the people you apparently work with confidentially.

nellyjelly Sun 16-Jun-13 07:24:08

Gliiterandglue is quite correct, some people ARE ill equipped to be parents and some people shoukd never be parents. Sad but true. Hardly a 'judgement', more a fact.

cory Sun 16-Jun-13 09:48:32

The timing seems the worst part of it: 4 hours after dd was born I couldn't have kept my eyes open, let alone concentrated on a dvd. Unless it's one of those things that they stick under your pillow and it sends subliminal signals to your subconscious it would have been pretty much wasted on me. Besides, I don't think anything I had agreed to at that time would have been likely to have had much influence on me later: I would have agreed to anything just to get them to go away and leave me in peace.

Ante-natal classes seem the best place to me.

pleiadianpony Sun 16-Jun-13 10:34:31

Mitchdafish I completely agree with you. The difficulty is is that Health professionals often do not have the training and time to approach difficult issues with the sensitivity needed. Perhaps as well there needs to be some real acknowledgement that many parents of a new baby will be feeling anxious about how they are going to cope already. Having their worst anxieties and fears presented to them in a frightening way at an inappropriate time by insensitive practitioners can be massively undermining.

The comments by the person posting about their role as a Childline worker are a bit worrying and incredibly judgmental. Everyone has a right to family life and people who have children do not want to fail. They want to they want to succeed. Saying people should not be parents is hugely insulting and discriminatory to children who are/have been in care, have grown up with neglect and abuse etc.

TheBigJessie Sun 16-Jun-13 11:10:22


Saying people should not be parents is hugely insulting and discriminatory to children who are/have been in care, have grown up with neglect and abuse etc.

No it isn't. Bleating on about how our abusive parents "have the right to a family life" (translation: you can do anything you like to your children, they're your property) is insulting and discriminatory. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to see through such pseudo-liberal justification (doubtless motivated by over-identification with fellow parents and fear that if we condemn abusive parents, you might get into trouble for shouting once- get a sense of scale woman).

If I wasn't intelligent enough to see through it, I might have ended up believing it, and then treating my children the way I was. Some adult victims do fall for this shit though, especially if they had an abusive mother, because there's so little support for children of abusive mothers.

I hope you feel proud of yourself.

TheBigJessie Sun 16-Jun-13 11:16:44

plinkyplonks Glitterandglue - nice to see you passing judgement on the people you apparently work with confidentially.

She didn't violate confidentially. And the people she works with, as she said explicitly are the children. Recognising that a child's parents were utterly shit, is really judging the child, now is it? It's generally supportive. Certainly far, far more supportive than what abused children encounter in society when they're trying to get help/support. "Oh, I'm sure s/he didn't mean to do that", "you need to be more understanding", "S/he's busy at the moment", "you should always make allowances for your parents because they give you life", "she gave birth to you".

My personal favourite was "when you cry, you're giving in to Satan" from an evangelical vicar, who was at my class, after seeing me have a total breakdown. I'd just checked my phone, you see, and heard a load of answerphone-messages from my mother, and I knew what I was going to go home to.

TheBigJessie Sun 16-Jun-13 11:18:20

I feel like being incredibly judgmental now.

Everyone has a right to family life. You disgust me.

FridaKarlov Sun 16-Jun-13 11:48:38

I think would have been a bit upsetting to watch this fresh after giving birth but I think it sounds necessary. I found the first 4-6 weeks extremely tough- I was miserable, quite frankly, because breastfeeding was very painful and my poor daughter was wickedly colicky. Looking up advice and coping techniques online kept me sane, but there were a couple of occasions where I was on the verge of snapping- the rage I felt at my helpless, maddeningly shrieking baby was so, so scary, it felt like I had a werewolf inside me. Luckily I learnt online that it was ok to put her down somewhere safe and calm myself down, or give her to my husband, because I was definitely capable of harming her on a couple of occasions.

The NSPCC have got to advertise somehow or they'd never get enough money coming in. That's what it's about. They have wages to pay. I don't doubt that there are decent people working there, but the ones running it day to day will be no different to say the directors of Nestle or BP.

Startail Sun 16-Jun-13 11:58:08

I do not give money to the NSPCC as they behave as if you are their property from the second you have a child.

plieadianpony Sun 16-Jun-13 11:59:00

Sorry to offend you TheBigJessie

Everyone has the right to a family life...UNLESS they harm or abuse.

Yup, some people are not equipped but sweeping judgments like some people shouldn't be parents (coming from a person in a professional type of role) sounds really judgmental to me!

i wholeheartedly believe that abuse should be named and kids should be supported to name it for what it is and that it is not o.k. Loads of kids in who have been abused don't explicitly get that message, it is blurred and that is really wrong and damaging in the long term. Social Care fails loads and loads of children.

Its great that you have been able to stand with a clear view.

Load of people can't. Those kids that have returned home after leaving care to live with shit families who exploit and abuse them or kids who desperately want contact with their abuser, because whatever has happened, they still identify the relationship as probably the only significant one they have got.

They might feel differently to you hearing some people shouldn't be parents about their own parents. (where do i fit in the world then? i haven't found a (safe) place yet?) How is that kind of statement productive to them or to a child stuck in an abusive family environment? It's not really. I've hear people say it who are in a professional position to do something about it and NOT effect any change. It just one of those rhetorical things people say....

Sense of scale covers a broad spectrum.

I DO Not believe "you need to be more understanding", "S/he's busy at the moment", "you should always make allowances for your parents because they give you life", "she gave birth to you" any of that crap!!

I am so so sorry that you had to tolerate that from a vicar. The church's collusion (whether right or wrongly) with abuse (evangelical churches) absolutely disgusts me. I have no sense of scale in that sense. Evangelical Christianity disgusts me and should be not be allowed.

I am very sorry that I offended you TheBigJessie. If more people could separate themselves from abusive situations more children could be removed from abusive situations rather than the cycle which sometimes perpetuates itself.

Thanks for making me look at things from a different view.

I have just become a Step Nan and as many know, am a CP SW.

The amount of people who do not know the dangers of throwing a baby around, astounds me.

I see people throwing young children, from a couple of months old, up in the air and catch them, yes, it makes them laugh, but, it could also cause brain damage.

My relatives', other Nan and Aunt, both recommended, throwing the baby over her shoulder and letting him "bounce" back down onto her knee, to wind him shock. Neither had heard of shaken baby syndrome, or similar injuries.

I had bought them lots of books on baby care and development, thanks to many telling her that she didn't need all these, or any classes, she only learn't want she read.

Older people forget that we are no longer surrounded by babys, as we once were, we do not pick up baby care, by example, any more.

She went to baby massage on my recommendation, although, again,people were putting her off. It helped her gain confidence by having a MW on hand to ask questions to, in regards to handling.

I always, say, but anyone working in Children's services, will agree, that the public do not hear about the amount of children that are disabled by their care givers, many, through ignorance.

We cannot force people to read the books that they are given, or go to the classes, so really, i don't know what the answer is.

You wouldn't get in a car, to drive without knowing the basics,i don't understand why everyone seems so against knowing the basics about baby care. Some of it doesn't come from instincts, especially when the care is given by wider family and you have a Mum whi isn't confident and doesn't like confrontation, as is often said across this board.

"some people shouldn't be parents"

I can safely say that i have met many people, both in my work and every day life that, that statement applies to.

In some cases, people will always be considered "a risk" and the judge in his summing up at the end of a case, will say that "this person should never have residency of a child".

No one is obligated to have residency of a child (i would never use the glib "abort" statement), every child has the right to grow up in a nurturing environment.

That is why "Parental Rights" was changed to "Responsibility".

TheBigJessie Sun 16-Jun-13 12:13:48

"Everyone has the right to a family life...^UNLESS they harm or abuse^."

Thank you. Never forget that proviso. Every time it's forgotten, how culture takes a step back.

They might feel differently to you hearing some people shouldn't be parents about their own parents. (where do i fit in the world then? i haven't found a (safe) place yet?) How is that kind of statement productive to them or to a child stuck in an abusive family environment? It's not really. I've hear people say it who are in a professional position to do something about it and NOT effect any change. It just one of those rhetorical things people say....

You have the right to that opinion, but it is my experience that people tiptoe around the issue so much that victims never get their abuse recognised. It is always "well, she's your mum" (even from professional staff- I got a phone-call a few days later from the domestic violence unit after she'd turned up extremely drunk and violent and refused to leave my home. "I understand you've been having problems with your mum". If it had been an abusive father, do you think they'd have said "dad"? I don't.). People have their actual reality denied to them. It is assumed you must work on the relationship at all costs, and it is your duty to yourself and them.

One of the most wonderful things for anyone who has been abused, whether parent, spouse or any other human being is to be believed and for other people to confirm to you that it was actually the abuser's fault things were like that. Some people are banned for life from pet ownership. Because they should not own pets. Children are not worth less than non-human animals. Some people should not be parents.

ComposHat Sun 16-Jun-13 12:30:04

I have no time for the NSPCC. They seem to function as a lobby group and seem to spend the vast part of their budget undertaking expensive marketing campaigns.

They are way down my list for charitable giving.

plieadianpony Sun 16-Jun-13 12:33:34

Yep, Abuse should not be tiptoed around. I completely agree. It is a poor situation that professional people that are trained to intervene are still tiptoeing around it. Children need the message that what their parent has done is wrong. That they have harmed them and they need protecting. Not some woolly intervention that is confusing.

But our society still fails to offer a solution. So all those kids that exist in that grey unclear boundary are lost. Ones who have been through the care system and had no resolution and not been able to find their place in the world I honestly believe they are as oppressed as any other minority.

Labelling them 'Care Leavers' disgusts me. (but that is another rant)

I talk about this alot with DH. We have said wouldn't it be great if people who have been abused could stand up and name it publically without shame, much more often. It would give power to children and adults and take alot of power away from abusers. Abuse is still hidden in so many peoples families, prushed under the carpet, not spoken about. Why should children feel ashamed? they only feel ashamed because no one has given a clear message that it is not o.k, they have been harmed.

*"Everyone has the right to a family life...^UNLESS they harm or abuse^."

Thank you. Never forget that proviso. Every time it's forgotten, how culture takes a step back*

We are STILL in a position in our culture though where we haven't really taken enough of a step forward. The uprising of the angry lynchmob culture (see daily mail) isn't a step forward. It's something else. I am not advocating liberalism, i just think there needs to be a clear and balanced view. Thanks for the discussion.

MiaowTheCat Sun 16-Jun-13 13:13:09

I'd be livid if they'd foisted that DVD on me post-natally. Thankfully, after spending all their budget on crappy branded plastic kiddies teaching clocks to turn the hands to the next time they were going to come and check on you... they had no budget for DVD players.

As for the comment of "how would you feel being picked out as a potential abuser just having given birth" in terms of targeting it.

I, sadly can answer that (I was referred to social services for getting distressed about the possibility of a forceps delivery - all I wanted was them to note my pain free gap to not wreck my SPD and that was the bastards' response)... it is the most utterly hideous, destructive, horrific thing; it's probably the easiest way going to alienate parents you want to reach and make them distrustful of any child-protection/health/surveilance related services; and it's probably a sure-fire ticket to ending up with post-natal mental health disorders (I ended up with a cracking anxiety one) because you feel like you're being watched and are terrified of doing anything "wrong" to slip up and be under scrutiny. So yep - I could see targeting it being utterly utterly destructive really. I certainly have zero trust for the system now - and I'm a relatively confident (or at least, good at bullshitting confidence), educated, articulate woman able to express and stand up for myself - imagine how it would feel if you weren't able to do all that and got picked out as the target group to be pulled aside for a DVD screening?! Talk about starting off on the wrong foot!

I object to the increasing trend to view all parents as some kind of brand of idiot child-abusers in waiting, to be scrutinised, have their every movement logged, distrusted as the default position on them and everything else that seems to be happening more and more - without any right for anyone to dare say it's gotten to be very very unpleasant because if they dare then they get shouted down with "Oh but if it saves another Baby P then you MUST be ok with this" - no, actually I'm NOT ok with being viewed as some kind of criminal in waiting actually.

There's no need to be upsetting, preying on hormonal, vulnerable women plugging them into a DVD pretty much as soon as their placenta's popped out - that's kind of disgusting that people think it's ok... Bounty women are the target of vitriol, but vile emotional blackmail and reducing these same women to tears - that's fine.

I don't agree Pony.

People are ashamed because it isn't nice to think that your parent couldn't parent and there are still ignorant people that judge you on your background and not the person that you have managed to be, despite your abuse/neglect.

Care Leavers have to be labeled, to be included in the law, as do "relevent young people", no diffrent to any label we need to direct funding.

The key is supposed to be early intervention, that isn't happening enough. Girls and women who have attachment issues to everyone in their lives, need extensive therapies. They don't just need a stable environment, in the form of Mum and Baby units/Foster placements ,as often thought. We shouldn't wait untilthey have problems parenting their own children until those therapies are offered.

I think that you are looking at it to simplisically, there are lots of complex situations happening in unison in neglect/abuse cases.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 16-Jun-13 14:33:51


How did you express your distress? And did they tell you that's why they referred?

plieadianpony Sun 16-Jun-13 14:38:53

Birdsgottafly i agree of course people are ashamed because 'it isn't nice to think that your parent couldn't parent' there is a massive stigma for a child/young person/adult.

They are also ashamed because abuse in itself is shaming. Shame 'holds' people in the grip of abusive relationships and situations. Abusers use shame to victimise.

Breaking free of shame can enable people to break free of abuse. Not just the immediate situation, but a lifetime of abuse and exploitation that can follow if the cycle isn't broken.

Naming what has happened, being believed and and being shown that the perpetrator was wrong can begin to free a person of shame. It can enable them to go on and believe they can build healthy relationships and that being treated with respect and dignity is not only possible but an absolute entitlement.

What I am saying is that if more people were confident enough to say ..you know what i was abused and it was wrong. And could stand up shame free, it would help pave a pathway for others and reduce judgement.

We need role models for people who are stepping out of abusive situations.

Yes, we need labels for legislative reasons but is it really appropriate for to be wheeling out literature with titles like 'are you a Care Leaver' Young people leaving care have few established systems with which offer foundation for identity. referring to them as Care Leavers' is labeling and de personalizing. How we use language really impacts on people and how vulnerable people identify.

I completely agree with what you say about Mother and Baby Units/Attachment etc. Young women may thrive in those environments then the systems in place are unable to counter the damage already done. Early intervention is really important BUT again. How do you reach those people without labelling them as potential abusers and balancing that with their human rights?

It is complex as you say. A bottom up system is always going to be better than top down reactionary services and interventions.

The DVD that is shown, is important information and again, should be in the public domain BUT there are ways to approach it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about unison abuse / neglect cases? I am guessing you are referring to Social Workers under investigation following serious case reviews?

Fillyjonk75 Sun 16-Jun-13 14:54:44

While abuse is horrible actually only a minority of parents are abusive.

Like becoming a crack or heroin addict, only a few people do that. What next? A form from your GP which you have to sign to say "I promise not to take crack".

A note from the police saying "I promise not to commit murder."

Where does it end? Stupid. Just give the advice. Offer a DVD if people want it, explaining the content could be upsetting.


mirai Sun 16-Jun-13 15:04:01
plinkyplonks Sun 16-Jun-13 15:14:16

Sorry but I disagree... discussing your thoughts on parents and children you have dealt with is passing judgement. Funny in these threads we get people who just so happen to work for <insert health profession here>. Small world huh? Anyhow .. this thread has been derailed because the OP was asking if it was unreasonable to show the video. Not an opportunity to argue who deserves to be a parent and who doesn't.

plieadianpony Sun 16-Jun-13 15:17:33

What are you disagreeing with plinkyplonks ? Sorry but am not clear...

plinkyplonks Sun 16-Jun-13 15:26:36

Apologies.. I was replying to TheBigJessie

nellyjelly Sun 16-Jun-13 19:53:36

US research shows 47% reduction in injuries related to head shaking after a similiar programme. Good enough for me.

Bue Sun 16-Jun-13 20:18:10

We are supposed to ask parents to watch this before they leave the postnatal ward, as part of the discharge procedure, then ask them to fill out a very brief questionnaire. I always felt a bit weird about it, but after having watched it myself I don't ask anyone to watch it anymore. It is an interesting DVD but the timing is utterly inappropriate.

Also I hate that it's basically asking parents to pledge 'I promise not to accidentally kill my baby'. hmm

JordiBoo Tue 09-Jul-13 22:01:12

I watched the whole ten minute video clip at an antenatal session last week. Yes, the content is distressing, but I think that's the point to make people realise that it only takes a moment to potentially snap.

I had my first two in a national health service style, general teaching hospital overseas. I was shown a very poor video, (with similar intent but poorly produced) before I was discharged from the postnatal ward. I felt a bit offended at the time. I think the NSPCC video is better shown with partners at an antenatal parent education session.

Here is the link to the project and the NSPCC video

MiaowTheCat Tue 09-Jul-13 22:19:36

Also I hate that it's basically asking parents to pledge 'I promise not to accidentally kill my baby'.

I hate this whole pledge-signing thing that seems to be coming in among all those working with parents these days... local children's centre had taken over the baby group with a child safety session the other week - and were basically bugging everyone to make a big thing of signing a pledge to do X Y and Z at the end of the session (it was stuff like "I promise to never leave hot drinks in the reach of my child" and "I promise my child will always sleep in a cot and never with me" and stuff) and I said I wasn't going to sign something that was basically treating me like an idiot and a child murderer in waiting. (I didn't fight the "co-sleeping will kill your baby" routine going on - we have a co-sleeping cot attached to the bed - as they're really zero tolerance line on it in this county so it's not worth the hassle)

Give it a couple of weeks and there'll be something asking us to sign a promise that we'll put suncream on our child and then another one pledging to read to our child every night - just gets my back up.

middymee Mon 29-Jul-13 22:44:56

Nellyjelly....there is no postnatal care in the US. Women basically leave hospital with a new baby and see no healthcare professional until 6wks post delivery. Their rates of non accidental are much, much higher than the UK to start with so obviously, introducing the DVD WILL make a difference.

middymee Mon 29-Jul-13 22:46:43

Sorry I meant to add that I'm a midwife. And another objection I have to it is the form that parents are asked to sign, also asks for 'level of education'!!!

MamaChubbyLegs Tue 30-Jul-13 00:20:28

Middy shock how are they going to use that information?

I'm not against the video or the pledge actually, as long as it is fully explained, appropriately timed, counselled and optional, but that is shocking.

middymee Tue 30-Jul-13 13:57:56

No idea! I'm assuming they are seeing if there's a link between non accidental head injury and education level!! I just think there's a group of people who will NEVER cross that line where they harm their child, but there will always be a group that will. I'm not wholly convinced that here in the UK it will make a big difference. As I said before, there's a huge lack of support & care in the US where the initial research was done which is why I think they've had success with it there.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now