AIBU to expect the NSPCC to actually achieve something?

[nametaken]

Apologies from me to Snaf as I went a bit off-topic on her thread when I started moaning about the NSPCC

Anyway, if you're interested, click here to see how the NSPCC spent your £156 million last year.

I probably am BU but they've really annoyed me now I know how much money they raise every year.

ending child cruelty my arse

where is the evidence that child abuse is as bad now as it was 124 years ago? i very much doubt it. corporal punishment has been banned, labour laws protect children, laws on education keep most in school til 16, we have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have changed our laws on incarceration of children, we are far more aware of abuse, we have regulatios on who can work with children, we have an NHS that provides healthcare to children, we have social services, which, for all their flaws, are better than a 19th cenury poorhouse. the list goes on...

here is a link to the story peachy mentioned.

Is it not the case though that if we had decently-funded social services they wouldn't be necessary? As far as I can see they raise awareness, but then refer on to SS anyway, and if they are understaffed or underfunded not much happens to sort the situation out. The NSPCC have no legal powers to intervene directly at all.

Sadly child abuse will always be with us.
At least there is now somewhere for children to go and somewhere else for different services to refer into.
The NSPCC do good work - they won't reduce child abuse but they will help pick up the pieces.

Personal view is NSPCC is a waste of money. They have very little to do with the immediate protection of children and generally pass the info straight on to Social Services, which pisses people off even more when they realise they've just wasted time talking to someone who can't do anything.

Their campaigns are very clever, but 99% of the time it will be your local authority social worker and the police who actually make sure kids are protected. That battered baby in the adds is extremely unlikely to be taken into care by the NSPCC. I like the way they try to pretend that they're somehow special or different, but have been involved (in terms of poor practice) in a number of child deaths.

So, YANBU at all.

7000 not 3000! wow!

'Some of the incidents reported by neighbours recently include:

A nine-year-old boy who had the barrel of a gun placed in his mouth
A young girl being threatened with an axe by her father
A homeless 12-year-old who was too afraid to go to sleep in case he woke up to find his alcoholic mum dead
A two-year-old child being dangled by the wrist out of a second floor window by her young mother
A baby living in a house where the floors were covered with rubbish and dog mess. The milk in its bottle had turned green because it was so old'

bitoffun see your point but one thing the NSPCC has is a better rep

there have been a few cases on here where the OP wouldnt contact SS, but happily phoned NSPCC who could then deal

same result, friendlier image?

Actually I think that they make money by creating a split between 'good' NSPCC who have a cosy little chat and "bad' Social Services who have to do the dirty work with all the crap that entails. I have no idea if this is deliberate.

ok third (and hopefully last) point. I think there is some misunderstanding here about the role that organisations like NSPCC play. Their very existence pushes/shapes/changes public opinion, public policy, and legislation. If it weren't for organisations that raise the profile of particular issues governments wouldn't move to address them. whether or not they refer on to ss misses the point. they are a crucial part of civil society - a crucial part of how change happens in a democratic society. governments need pushing. and NGOs are very often key to that.

I'm not for a second denying that there are crap ones but there does seems to be misunderstanding about what they can do, how they do it and why.

NSPCC had a good rep in the industry (was back in 2001 though that I started)- many of our staff were ourced from there, the better ones.

There are one or wo charities I wouldn't toch, the NSPCC isn't one of them althugh like an earlier poster saud I was about one mailer they sent out.

Hi ladies

I'm all for freedom of speech but I find it really upsetting when people write blatantly missinformed things about a charity that does so much to improve the lives of children.

I've been involved with the NSPCC for years, know a lot of their extremely dedicated staff and have seen first hand what benefits the organisation has to the children it reaches out to.

They are above all a campaigning organisation that have done a great deal to influence government policy for the better - from playing an instrumental role in changing a loophole in the law which allowed couples who kill their children to literally get away with murder to playing a massive role in setting up CEOP - an agency which has been responsible for ensnaring dangerous paedophiles who use the internet to abuse children.

Despite the fact that they're largely a campaigning organisation they have 180 direct services for children and young poeople that last year worked with 26,185 children and adults concerned about children (all this info is on their website by the way and externally and independently audited for accuracy).

I don't know whether you've seen it but they also produce a free magazine called Your Family (think it's online now too) which is full of really good articles and tips on positive parenting.

Also (and this is the thing that really winds me up) the purpose of their advertising isn't to make a profit from their own product in the way that things like McDonalds or Ariel automatic do - they're either to encourage people to donate or (more often than not) are public education messages asking children to speak out about abuse or to adults asking them to be someone to turn to for young people.

What they spend on advertising is totally minimal compared to what they spend on everything else and if you think about it what more cost effective method is there of getting your message across to as many people as possible. Plus I've found out that they never pay their celebrities for the work they do and lets face it a celebrity giving across a message is far more interesting to a young person than an MP.

Anyway end of rant. I'm sure their website could dispel any further myths if you want to find out more about the many many things they do. They don't claim to be able to end child abuse on their own - how the hell could they? - but I'd say it's a fairly noble aspiration to have and perhaps if we all played our part instead of complaining they might get a little bit further with it.