NSPCC TELEVISION ADVERT

[GORGEOUSX]

in thinking that the NSPCC has an awful lot of money to spend on advertising.

I hate the nationwide tv advert they run frequently, and fail to see how my giving £2 is going to stop the scum of the earth from beathing their kids to death. Also DD2 finds it very, very sad and doesn't like to see the child actors portraying these pitiful situations.

I'm sure that if giving £2 was to stop these evil bastards, nigh on everybody would give that and more!

It was the constant writing to me to increase my amount that drove me to distraction. (I once got 7 letters in approx a 5 month period.) I stopped my direct debit after that.

I do think that as more and more charities do these television appeals we get desensitised. I've just seen the save the children one as I'm typing and it barely registered. Which is terrible really but a sign of the times I suppose

And Gorgeous, I understand your viewpoint of wanting to keep your child innocent but the world is not a nice place sometimes.

At 10 I imagine she has seen movies with violence in them and conflict and war on the news. If more children understood that such things as being left alone without food or heat is not acceptable then maybe they would feel able to speak out about how things are at home for them.

And some of the children the NSPCC helps are childen who have been neglected since they were babies, they have a right to be protected.

YY DurhamDurham. I used to have a direct debit with the Red Cross but the amount of letters , pens, stickers etc they sent me every month must have used up over half the money I gave them. I cancelled it in the end and now give my money to a local charity.

I still fail to see how donating money is going to stop abuse. If one has a concern about a child they can report it to social services or crimestoppers - you don't need the NSPCC for that.

Yes, there will always be children who slip through the net, but I don't think donating to NSPCC will prevent that; the government are going to scrap unannounced visits by social workers and I would have thought that would go a long way towards helping these children.

The only way I know of the NSPCC helping, is by providing Childline, which I do think is a good thing, but, again, I don't think it stops abuse, I think it's someone who cares on the other end of the line.

I went off the nspcc after the advert they put out about four years ago showing different reasons you should call them for a child who may be being abused. One scene showed a women with a crying baby in a trolley outside a supermarket shouting at her child. I think nearly every mother I know, myself included, has done that and tbf I think they are massively responsible for the relentless "everyone is an abuser" paranoia so prevalent in our society today. Awareness is one thing, scaremongering is another and they use donation money to do just that.

Thecrackfox DITTO! Unbelievable waste of peoples' donations.

prettyfly1 Agreed. And, yes, I hold my hand up to having shouted at my DC - as I believe we all have!

Actually, correction: MIL NEVER has - but then she's that rare breed that doesn't need to - a look will suffice. (And there aren't many faces that stern-looking around).

The unsolicited 'gifts' and constant requests for increases from various charities drove me mad too, despite my requests for them to stop. When I asked one charity why they wouldn't stop writing and sending stuff I was told that it costs them too much to not send out to everyone on the list.

I just pay Dogs Trust now, asked them never to write to me and I'd continue and they've done as I asked.

Gorgeous, I think you are wrong. The NSPCC does help abused children and I have given you an example that I read and there must be thousands more out there.

With all the Government cuts the work of such charities is going to become even more important as they will be expected to step into the breech.

I agree that pens sent out etc by charities are a waste of money and I'm not sure of the rationale behind them except maybe for getting their brand out there but no charity or organisation is perfect and if a cause is close to your heart then people should keep supporting it. My donation is given so that I am not turning a blind eye to behaviour I don't agree with.

I prefer to donate to smaller charities too, what really puts me off is the workers who grab you in the street or knock at your door & are quite forcefull in asking that you donate regularly.

I had one that told me that if I didnt donate I would be the only one out of all my neighbours

I agree that it seems like a lot is spent on advertising & mailshots. And some huge salaries to some of the staff too judging by the adverts I have seen.

It does seem like a long way away from when people collecting used to be volunteers.

Is there anywhere where the charities publish a brief & readable breakdown of where their money goes? I would genuinely like to be proved wrong on this one.

where some nspcc money has gone

I don't view not donating as turning a blind eye. To me, turning a blind eye would be knowing a child was being abused and not reporting it.

And my DD aged 10 has not watched violent films, both because she herself wouldn't want to and because I would not allow her to. Granted she has seen images on the news which are violent, but that saddens me too. I would say the NSPCC adverts are the most upsetting thing she has ever seen and I don't know why she needs to know these things at such a tender age. She can know all about it when she's an adult - there's nothing spoiling.

I'm surprised I've still got my children if shouting at them outside the supermarket is enough to get you referred to social services!!

looking at expenditure in their most recent accuonts...

Cost of generating funds
£30,226,000 - this is fundraising NOT ADVERTISING

Activities to end cruelty to children
£112,926,000
? Services directly for children and families.
? Child protection helplines and websites.
? Public awareness, education, influencing and motivation to take action.
? Partnerships with other child protection organisations.
? Professional training on safeguarding and child protection.
? Research on the causes of, and responses to, child abuse.

so somewhere in that £113m is the cost of the ads.

Fishie I'm speechless! Except to say that somewhere in there, there are also some huge salaries - These people reward themselves very highly on public donations.

one salary of £160,000. i can't work out the advertising spend from their accounts at all.

It is perfectly legit to offset part of one's admin costs against direct charitable work and I'd argue that a charity should be able to prove it is well run and has proper back office functions. But there is something so dishonest about the way nspcc do it that really annoys me.

The current accounting regulations don't help so thornykate the best I can suggest is to look at Charity Commission website charity returns, which should include performance, goals as well as what they spend.

totally agree OP. i dont' think the NSPCC funds social workers. it's our taxes that do that.

i had exactly the same thoughts myself and so checked out the NSPCC website and there was nothing on there that described the work they were doing. so either they aren't doing that much or they are really bad at publicising what they do and how it has an impact.

agree childline offers a service but they don't actually get that many calls afaik.

how on earth would the NSPCC have stopped baby P?????

as far as i can see it's just pulling the heartstrings to get the wallet open.

nspcc return their methods for measuring impact are listed but then they don't state the results.

totally agree OP. i dont' think the NSPCC funds social workers. it's our taxes that do that.

they do. I was employed directly by the NSPCC

Salaries for executives seem hugh but they are actually lower than they could earn in the private sector. BUt they have to be at least competative or else they would not be able to attract the people who are best in their feild.

A charity needs people who know the business and can push the "company" further.

if they only used volunteers or paid much lower salaries they simply couldn't keep their staff. And would be left to be run by those who no one else wants...which helps no one.

I can't bear the nspcc since they did a direct mail a few years ago when I had just had dc1. There was nothing on the envelope to suggest from nspcc and inside was a "book of baby names" again without nspcc logo. Inside by each of the names was a description of horrific abuse where the meaning of the name would have been. Absolutely horrific and no thought of what situation I was in. As it happens I had a healthy happy baby but what if I hadn't. It was sickening and I made a very strong complaint. The response was effectively "the ends justify the means". I have found other places to donate.

littlebylittle Yes, their advertising seems to be more about shock than anything else, and it's all rather sickening. They state their vision as being to mobililse everyone into ending cruelty to children. That's ridiculous too, as the public don't have the power to end cruelty to children, no matter how 'mobilised' they are.

I also don't like the insinuation that if you're not lining their pockets you are not interested in ending child cruelty.

NSPCC is a charit. It is non profit making.

you are not lining anyone's pockets by donating to them.

'Childline don't get that many calls'

WTF???

I am a ChildLine counsellor and we are constantly inundadted with calls. There are far more calls then there are operators to take them. We're open 24 hours a day and we're constantly busy.

Last year, childline received approximately half a million phon calls. only about two thirds of them were able to be answered.

And GorgeousX - Yes, ChildLine can help stop abuse.

How is the NSPCC misleading people and taking money from places where they don't operate be justified by that area having free tuition and prescriptions?

Genuine question BTW but in type I can't really put it over the way I want to IYSWIM.

The way I see it, by failing to state the local equivelant or even where they do and do not protect children they are takin valuable advertising time and money away from charities that need the money to provide they service they cannot.

Don't know if that made any sense :o