Barrister Sarah Phillimore and the NSPCC

1984, that was my take on the NSPCC's statement of "We’re also reporting these to Twitter and recommend you do too".

They wanted to ensure that those Tweets (that raised the safeguarding concern) were deleted from Twitter.

Thanks for all you’ve done so far Spero, I’ve been following you on Twitter with admiration of your dealings with “tenacious beardy blokes”

Whilst they’re not “mainstream” media as such, Private Eye, The Spectator and The New Stateman have run some meaty articles around these topics. I wonder if it’s worth trying to talk to Miles Goslett, who broke the Kids Company scandal?

Where or when did the NSPCC ask people to delete evidence?

I am concerned that this is EXACTLY what has happened. The real story here is obvious and from the NSPCC's own bloody Twitter feed. That no journalist will touch it is disgraceful.

I have pondered over the Mail. They dont often do much analysis. Instead they like to write about a person, preferrably female, and accompanied by a sad face photo.

Their story would be along the lines of "Countess of Wessex embarrassed by rubber boy wanker..." or a similar click bait headline, with an appropriate photo of the Countess looking sad.

That really isn't true. They've done loads of excellent news reporting. Look at the brilliant interview Sanchez Manning of the MoS did with Helen Watts about Girlguiding UK. Or their report on Karen White. Or the stories they did about Kids Company when it collapsed. Or indeed their reporting of the Savile case when that came out - it was much more extensive than any of the other papers.

My best guess is that they've been frightened off by threats of legal action.

Thank you again all. Once again it is sobering to see just how much of what is important is being lead by mumsnet, rather than by our elected politicians or our journalists.

I’m in for a crowdfunded.

The fact the press will “not touch this” is indeed, chilling. It’s as if the report into Oxfam, didn’t just happen! The press should be all over this.

Spero, in terms of MSM there were probably only two candidates anyway. The Mail and the Times.

I could see why the Times might have backed off, at least temporarily. They had the Janice Turner spat/article and knew the Mermaids piece was coming up. Any more and accusations of a witchhunt would have gained resonance. As it is the Mermaids piece should help, as it seems to be another example of poor professionalism and a failure to centre safeguarding.

I have pondered over the Mail. They dont often do much analysis. Instead they like to write about a person, preferrably female, and accompanied by a sad face photo.

Their story would be along the lines of "Countess of Wessex embarrassed by rubber boy wanker..." or a similar click bait headline, with an appropriate photo of the Countess looking sad.

The person most likely to write it up, I think, is James Kirkup. Perhaps as a follow up to his current blog post. It might sit well with his interest in the democratic process.

You've got to think NSPCC culture is way off track when 150 employees felt it was right to petition the dropping of MB on safeguarding grounds.
www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/11/munroe-bergdorf-nspcc-staff-condemn-decision-to-cut-ties-with-trans-activist

The Countess of Wessex is patron of the NSPCC, how about a letter to her highlighting what is going on and what her name and reputation is associated with?

Thank god someone is taking action over this. I have been very disappointed in the fact that this hasn’t been published in the newspapers. July 15th will be going in my diary too & I will definitely be supporting legal action.
Let’s give these people no where to hide.

As it is an organisation, I am told, with a £140 million yearly income and statutory powers to bring care proceedings, I chose to find this deeply concerning.

I think this is absolutely pivotal.

We must expect more from all charities concerned with child protection. But the NSPCC is the only child protection charity in the country with statutory power under the Children Act. It must be held to the highest of standards. The absolute highest.

The woeful showing over the past week or so - compounded by previous reluctance to engage here on MN itself - is of serious concern.

I'll support you, Spero, in whichever you decide is the best way forward.

Totally agree that this is about the NSPCC response. As a national charity, if an issue about one of your employees is disclosed publicly, which impacts in any way on your work, you investigate. You STATE that you are investigating. It is not just about having rigorous procedures in relation to staff, but for these to be VISIBLE so that there is public confidence. In the same way that if this had happened in a social services office, the public would be entitled to know that the matter was taken seriously and being investigated. This is an important principle.

For NSPCC to firstly attack the whistleblower and then state that it is a “personnel issue” and no further comment will be made is outrageous. These people take public money and private donations. They have statutory powers in relation to safeguarding children. They are not a corner shop selling sherbet lemons.

Finally, for me, the obvious question then becomes that, given this is the response - defensive, secretive, arrogantly telling the public to mind their own business - did they know all about this anyway? The employees apparent indiscretion could mean that there was a culture that viewed certain behaviour as non problematic, that valued a version of “diversity” over and above common- sense judgement.? That had become blind to what any average, decent person would know was unacceptable behaviour.?

The fact that I am asking those questions and others are doing the same, means that public confidence in a charity which enacts government responsibilities is damaged. THAT is a huge issue.

Thanks Sarah. I will contribute as much as I can. I’m assuming the MSM won’t touch this because an investigation is in place. If not and if they are carrying on as usual, then this whole situation is even more sinister than at first appears. So important, as you say, to keep insisting on a response from them.

Would also chip in for a crowdfunder.

Totally agree with your interpretation of this, Spero.

The question is what did NSPCC do when they became aware of a potential safeguarding issue?

They issued this statement in public on Twitter:

twitter.com/NSPCC/status/1138860884737044480

"We absolutely won’t tolerate bullying of any kind against our people. Supporting staff is a priority, and we're offering various support to staff including counselling . We’re also reporting these to Twitter and recommend you do too".

So:

• They immediately called the simple act of raising of a safeguarding issue "bullying"

• They said that supporting staff is a priority. I thought protecting children was their priority, so how do they balance protecting children with supporting staff who have concerns raised against them?

• They asked for others to delete evidence of the safeguarding issue.

We need to ask whether that was an appropriate public response to a safeguarding issue. If the NSPCC is confident that it acted correctly, then they can explain why it made the statement that it did. And whether it has acted on the safeguarding concerns raised.

Also agree that merely shining a light on this issue is hugely important, irrespective of the likelihood of legal action succeeding.

Legal action will garner media attention, and I also hope that other professionals in child protection will become aware of the issue and speak out.

Happy to contribute.

I presume the issue is not the reality of the videos, Sunset (I've seen the still which was enough for me), but whether it was indeed his workplace at the NSPCC, and whether he himself made the connection between the wanking videos and his place of work.

My understanding is that the videos were readily stumbled upon accidentally from his LinkedIn page (since edited) and that he himself had pretty much admitted on his Twitter feed what had happened.

But I guess the press do have to be very careful what they say about him and whether he did indeed blur the boundaries between private and work life, because so far a lot of this is speculation. They're the sort of accusations which, if provably true, should lead to sacking.

But as Spero says the actual story is the NSPCC's response.

They ought to have said "cannot comment on confidential personnel matter during an ongoing investigation", rinse and repeat.

Instead they leapt straight to "shut the fuck up bigots", which frankly (specially in the context of the Oxfam whistleblowers an scandals over sexual abuse) makes me and a lot of others think "cover up, much?" and "what the hell else are you covering up?" and "corporate policies on safeguarding gone to shit in the country's largest children's charity, the only one with statutory powers."

That's the story. And it shouldn't be swept under the carpet.

The point is the response - or lack of it - from the NSPCC

If the allegations are fake - say so
If you don't know if the allegations are fake - investigate

This.

I think the tweet where they said it was a personnel matter and they wouldn't comment further was terrible.

All it did was look like it was acknowledging there was a problem, they were aware of the problem but were going to keep it hush hush.

It poured petrol on the flames of the comments online and makes it look like something has happened and they are trying to cover it up, in the eyes of anyone who had been following the story.

That in itself raises questions of transparency and public trust.

It's possible there isn't 'anything to see here' but this particular tweet certainly makes it look like there is, because it acknowledges but fails to resolve concerns.

That's newsworthy in its own right.

Charities need to be above board but they also need to be seen to be acting in ways consistent with being above board.

Otherwise you get a bunch of rumours which fester and don't help anyone at all, because trust has been lost.

Thanks Spero

Umm the videos were definitely real. I saw them. They were still available in cache, not sure if they still are: I kind of don't wish to look again.

Definitely in for a crowdfunded. Would it help to have more reports to the charity commission? Have a list of charities I would like to report as am sure they are breaching the rules...

I’ll chip in on a crowdfunder too, Spero.

Bring it spero