Is NSPCC school guidance for kids re sexual abuse shifting the Overton Window? Need expert advise to break this down.

''The members' hotline for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) rang, of all places, inside the Home Office. The phone would be picked up by Steven Smith, a paedophile and member of the group who worked in security in Whitehall, from where he would tell callers where to go for the next meeting to discuss issues including decriminalising sex with children as young as four.''

''The members' hotline for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) rang, of all places, inside the Home Office. The phone would be picked up by Steven Smith, a paedophile and member of the group who worked in security in Whitehall, from where he would tell callers where to go for the next meeting to discuss issues including decriminalising sex with children as young as four.''

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/26/lobbying-paedophile-campaign-revealed-hewitt

PIE framed their demands as those of rights - child rights, liberal views, and free speech.

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

I think for me what makes everything more sinister for me is that their (the NSPCC) ignorance of these issues is entirely the result of, at best, a poor effort to deliver a difficult message in an age appropriate way. At worst, it demonstrates that they have almost no understanding of safeguarding at all.

I am no expert, but it seems to be that robust safeguarding is developed from an attitude of constantly questioning why such and such a decision was made. Who does it benefit? Is it the correct decision? Are there any issues likely to arise which might affect those we are supposed to be protecting?

And my main concern about all of this: if FWR on Mumsnet can pull your policies to pieces in 20 posts, then shouldn’t you get down to Mumsnet PDQ and take on board the excellent advice from posters who are obviously experts? Why don’t the NSPCC seem to have the same level of expertise within the organisation? Is there an issue with their recruitment (it would seem so, looking at wanking man )

All hugely worrying.

So children are only abused if it makes them feel scared. Its really not a thing for adults to convince the child its something they want or whatever. The NSPCC know this, they have to. So quite why they have done this, I cannot see anything other than it being a sinister reason tbh. The NSPCC really needs to be looked at. I would request another webchat too to get everyones points across, however they ran away from the last one

I’m a teacher and we have NSPCC in to school for the assembly etc. Thank you for raising this. It will be challenged next time they come knocking for their fundraising activity! The assembly is usually followed by a fundraiser.

DpWm

This is such an important conversation to have. It's almost unbelievable how they've changed the definition to one that's not even remotely fit for purpose.

Shame is THE deterrent for some, confusion can convert to violation and then to shame. Some skeletons are not our own transgressions but the transgressions we endure and hold against ourselves. Broken trust builds impenetrable walls.

This programme is really odd because it's totally at odds with the definition of sexual abuse from the main website (my bold):

A child is sexually abused when they are forced or persuaded to take part in sexual activities.

This doesn't have to be physical contact and it can happen online. Sometimes the child won't understand that what's happening to them is abuse.They may not even understand that it's wrong. Or they may be afraid to speak out.

That's why we're working to break the silence around child sexual abuse, and give children a voice when they desperately need support.

So they acknowledge that children don't always realise they're being abused but then in their training FOR CHILDREN, they tell them that it's only abuse if it makes them feel uncomfortable.

That's really really interesting, the stark difference between the way physical(violence) abuse and sexual abuse is framed chicken.
It's almost as though the definition of CSA is seen by the NSPCC as subjective. And there are prominent people -Peter Tatchell comes to mind-who are pushing that notion.
Also your point about adding to children's shame is heartbreaking to think about and spot on.

Who are the NSPCC trustees? Do any of them understand child safeguarding?

One of the Trustees of the NSPCC with responsibility for safeguarding is Dr Joanna Begent: [email protected]

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-us/organisation-structure/

Dp, Vix

This is a link to what I am fairly certain is the programme overview for the Speak Out, Stay Safe Programme.

www.st-michaels.surrey.sch.uk/application/files/4415/0832/1522/NSPCC-Speak_out_Stay_Safe_Content.pdf

It appears that in key stage one they teach that "Privates are private: Sometimes people may want children to do things with their bodies which might make them feel uncomfortable or unsure. Sometimes this involves the private parts of the body, which are the parts covered by underwear."

In the key stage two assembly a voice over introduces the definitions of abuse

"Sexual Abuse: When a child is being made, asked, or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them – or being made to do this to somebody else. It can involve touching, kissing or being made to show private parts of the body, or being made to do this to another person. It can involve being shown inappropriate films or pictures in books, magazines, on TV, mobiles phones or online. The private parts of the body are those covered by underwear."

I think that it is noticeable how this definition contrasts with the definition for physical abuse for example, which does not require the child to be upset or feel worried. Also the emphasis is much more on what the abuser is doing.

"Physical Abuse: This is when someone deliberately hurts or injures a child’s body. This could be by kicking, biting, hitting, shaking or leaving marks. Physical abuse may cause pain, cuts, bruising and/or broken bones."

This difference can also be seen in the definition of neglect and bullying and even in the definition of emotional abuse.

Children in year 5/6 also have a workshop where there are given 5 statements to decide if OK or not. These are:
"Someone says that what is going on is a secret.
Someone watches or touches a child, when the child doesn’t want them to.
A family member gives a child a kiss goodnight.
Someone shows or sends a child an inappropriate film or message. This could be face to face or online."

The NSPCC definition of sexual abuse is then given again.

I think that the definition is very wrong as not only is it unhelpful for those children who have been groomed to not be concerned about the abuse but it is also unhelpful as I think that many children have not yet developed enough awareness to be worried in the first place, especially if the abuse is carried out by someone who otherwise seems kind to them.

I also think that for some sexually abused children this definition will add to their shame that they let the abuse happen because clearly 'normal' children would know it was wrong and be upset by it. Therefore the abuser is right when he says that they wanted it etc.

I think that this could actually result in children being less likely to disclose to someone. Shame is a powerful deterrent to disclosing.

Yes it’s really badly worded and needs changed for all the reasons outlined on this thread. Thanks for highlighting.

Who are the NSPCC trustees? Do any of them understand child safeguarding?

That was me Lougle I think I meant "imposed on" from my point of view, not the child's but I wasn't clear.
I did say though that children need to be told very plainly what is right and wrong with no vague reference to feelings, so I agree with you.
Langs scenario with Mr Person is exactly why this guidance needs changing urgently. So much abuse happens at the hands of people children actually like and trust, not some shady slobbering weirdo in a mac. In fact imo the betrayal and confusion of boundaries is one of the worst things abusers do. It makes children think they are complicit and consenting, which is just evil.

It looks like a problem to me.

If I wanted to take a best intentions approach I would surmise that they wanted to cover things that might not obviously scream abuse but which were done in a way that frightens the child. Or they were trying to use simple language.

But it's not useful as a definition, it says bth too little and too much.

Something I picked up from what somebody else said is this notion of sexual activity being 'imposed' on a child. If a child has been groomed, they may well think they are, and/or seem to be, completely willing to take part in their abuse. They may seem like the activity isn't being imposed on them at all. Because they don't know that they've been groomed and they don't know the behaviour isn't normal, and that not everyone does it.

As a PP said, CSE is surely any sexual activity between a child and an adult/older child. There is no need to talk about how it feels. That it is happening is the problem.

This is the message the altered wording sends:

If Mr Person at Children's Club keeps lifting up your t-shirt and tickling you and you don't like it, you should tell someone.

But also:

If Mr Person at Children's Club keeps lifting up your t-shirt and tickling you and you laugh cos tickling makes you laugh and, after all, Mr Person has told you lots of times what good friends you are, there's no need to tell anyone.

It's blindingly bloody obvious - to everyone but the NSPCC, apparently - that children should be taught to disclose in both situations. This is basic, basic, stuff.

It is worrying because it is part of the Stay Safe, Speak Out campaign. This is the information that is being communicated to children.

This is the important part of the accurate, lawful, definition with regard to this: Sometimes the child won't understand that what's happening to them is abuse.

So the subtle change in the Stay Safe, Speak Out campaign about wrong behaviour only being something that frightens the child may well result in children not making disclosures and abuse going undiscovered.

It also has unpleasant slippery slope implications on consent of minors.

That is heartbreaking SirVixofVixHall

My opinion FWIW is that there is too much implied meaning in that definition such that on its own it doesn’t really tell you what CSA actually involves. I get that it needs to be written in a child appropriate manner but also needs to be clear in its meaning. I think it needs completely rewriting.