Did anyone else get that v. upsetting 'baby names book' from the NSPCC this morning?

[tigertum]

This morning I got a mailer from the NSPCC asking for monthly contributions. Enclosed was a leaflet designed to look like a baby names book and under each letter was a childs name and underneath a brief desciption of how this child (mostly under two, one at only 9 weeks old) had died of abuse. Many of the deaths were horribly violent and had been at the hands of parents. I read it, and it had me in tears. Just thinking about it makes me want to cry again.

I already contibute to Oxfam every month and DP and I have agreed on this amount and we cant change it. The letter enclosed began with something like 'as a new mum', so I was probabbly targeted as a mother, possibly who is on record of being a regular contributer to a charity.

Yes, it was very effective in that it made me feel incredibly upset and depressed/angry at he world that this kind of thing can happen. As I sat, blothcy faced, staring at this 'baby names book', I couldn't decide if it's right or not for something that distressing should land on my door step oiut of the blue, especially if I was targetted by this mail because on some database somewhere I am logged as a mum who contributes to charities.

Did anyone else get this mail, what's your opinion?

I find it so hard to stomach the comments about the campaign being "distasteful & upsetting". The NSPCC weren't making this stuff up. What happened to those "names" was real.
How can people take the time to complain but not help is beyond me!
I wonder if people complained about seeing emaciated children's bodies when the LiveAid campaign was initiated? Surely that could be described as "distasteful & upsetting" too?

For most people paying the mortgage etc comes a lot furthwer up the list than their social conscience.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pay their mortgage - but I think you'll agree that most people don't need 6 figure salaries (plus all the perks) to be able to pay those mortgages.........

I don't know all of it Fairyjay but they have 180 child protection teams & units on their roster. I imagine they are not all just drinking coffee all day.
They also have research projects, publications & training.

lemonaid - you are spot on with "a cunningly disguised list of dead children".

Bugsy - I did help. I sent a lump sum to the NSPCC, and was inundated for years afterwards with videos, money (admittedly only coins) and other marketing material. I have to say that it completely turned me off giving to the NSPCC again.

Ok, the original poster said that the leaflet of "cunningly disguised dead children" (someone elses words) was very effective & made her feel incredibly upset, depressed & angry that this kind of thing could happen. She wanted to know if it was right that something this distressing should land on her door step out of the blue.

Surely, the NSPCC has achieved exactly what it set out to by raising awareness in this instance.

It's a good point about LiveAid et al.
But it was done "well". I'm not skilled enough to do this myself but I can recognise superior quality.

Sir Robert Geldof is famously not a "tokenist", like the people running the NSPCC. They want to say stuff, not do it.
He clearly cares about his subject, and has the rare talent of being able to pick and attract the very best people to help him.

My gripe is not about being "shocked" but that a major charity has lost the plot. The apparent lack of any criminal wrongdoing at the NSPCC means that the damage being done by the clique is not likely to be stopped any time soon.

By definition almost all charities have to basically say "give us money or the kid dies".
Cancer isn't pretty either, but we don't see horror images from them. Many religious people believe that without salvation you will suffer for eternity. Can't remember seeing seeing hell on a poster for a long time.
Health firms don't do horror either, and life threatening germs are portrayed as cartoon characters who fade away in detergents.

Happy stories generally get you more money. I simply can't recall a happy story about the NSPCC either through the news of through their own propaganda.

I am not remotely impressed by celebrities (or politicians) signing bloody pledges. If that's what my money is going on then they aren't having any more. What are they actually DOING for CHILDREN as apposed to for publicity?

Well they provide ChildLine for a start Sorrell.

You see Bugsy, I didn't know the NSPCC provided Childline. I also didn't know they had 180 child protection teams. I would be happy to help pay for both of those things.
I did know about child cruelty, though.

All of which suggests that they could perhaps target their publicity more effectively.

I said "cunningly disguised list of dead children", not "cunningly disguised dead children". If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. It was a list of dead children cunningly disguised as a baby names pamphlet, hence "cunningly disguised list".

LiveAid etc. did not come onto our screens saying "Here is a short and amusing film about fluffy bunnies" and then flash up shots of dying children. IMO that's the critical difference. In fact it was quite the opposite -- there was a lot of "the following report, which some viewers may find distressing".

Disagree stongly with DominiConnor, though -- I have met several of the "people running the NSPCC" and they are not tokenists and do very definitely want to do things (and actually do them).

I do take the point about raising awareness, but if this wasn't supposed to be a money-raising campaign then it was doing a good job of looking like one. And as an NSPCC supporter it annoys me that so many of their campagns seem to be focused on awareness of the existence of child abuse than on awareness of how to tackle it (including the great work that they do). They are, after all, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, not the National Society For Telling People About Cruelty To Children. Talking about it is an important part of prevention, but too often IMO the NSPCC's public face doesn't show anything beneath that.

For example, there was a Full Stop poster campaign a few years back featuring a crying baby, the general message of which was "A crying baby can drive you to distraction. But cruelty to children must stop, Full Stop". One of the things the NSPCC Child Protection helpline does is field calls from parents who are at the end of their tether with a crying baby and are scared they might hit it, but you wouldn't know that from the poster, or what the number was.

Actually, as part of the Full Stop campaign they did produce a really good, constructive and helpful leaflet , which is exactly the sort of thing I think they should be doing more of. But I've never seen a copy in the real world -- in the real world I get stuff like the mailing that started this thread. I think if everyone who got a copy of the "Baby Names" mailing got one of those leaflets instead it would do a lot more good.

[I am overreacting to an extent. We had a great mailing a couple of months back about a drop-in day centre and how it helped one adult survivor of childhood abuse rebuild her life and break the cycle with her own children by working with her over many years -- but that was a mailing to existing supporters, not something to inform the general public, and that's where I think they really let themselves down.]

nspcc and childline set to join up

Just sent the link to this debate to the NSPCC. Might be of some use to them.

apologies Lemonaid, I realised I had missed the word list out - it was a question of typing too fast, rather than trying to change your meaning.

lemonaid knows these poeple better than I do, so perhaps she knows why they obsess about "campaigns" not work ?

If I'm wrong (which appens so often), why did we get the Victoria Climbe case where the reports specifically showed that the NSPCC wasn't that interested if it wasn't a "campaign" ?

If these poeple are in a position to "do stuff", why precisely do we get campaigns against child abuse that don't even mention the helpline ?

Aside from wanting to retain status with their clique, the only other option I can guess at is a degree of incompetence that would shame the Child Support Agency.

Since you know them, have you any idea why they do all this crap ?

Think lemonaid's posts are excellent. That's exactly the point. All that horror, all those upsetting ads, and yet do you know what they are actually FOR? Why are there horrible, upsetting leaflets, including a fake birthday card that I very, very nearly gave to my own son, thinking someone had sent him it for his birthday which was that week, instead of helpful leaflets about childhood behavour and effective parenting methods? Is it because that isn't as exciting for marketeers? Feel peed off with NSPCC for lots of things, including the fact that when a stupid mother tried to get a vicar ousted from his post (and very nearly succeeded) because the vicar gave a child he had been mentoring a kiss on the cheek at a primary school prizegiving, the NSPCC spokesman was quoted as saying that he'd behaved inappropriately. I thought that was totally shocking.
As for Childline, the NSPCC did not set up Childline nor lifted a finger to do anything when it was struggling to meet demand. Only when Childline's founder and board begged for help did it do anything, as far as I can see. And WE fund it, not the 'NSPCC' which has no money of its own. I am glad that my contributions are finally going to something useful.

I said "met", not "know". And I have yet to see the research that shows that on meeting someone you instantly become privy to all their inner secrets and motivations.

the Victoria Climbe case where the reports specifically showed that the NSPCC wasn't that interested if it wasn't a "campaign" ?

Do you have a reference for that? It's certainly not in the final report of the inquiry.

If these poeple are in a position to "do stuff", why precisely do we get campaigns against child abuse that don't even mention the helpline ?

I have no idea why their campaigns don't mention the helpline. But if, as you allege, they want to "say stuff, not do it" why do they -- well, I'm not going to list all 180 real, on the ground, helping vulnerable children projects. Or does none of that count as doing stuff becaue the posters don't mention the helpline.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of the NSPCC failings.
A quick google turns up
BBC
The NSPCC's own spin

I didn't say I wasn't aware of any NSPCC failings. I asked for a reference to support your statement that 'the reports specifically showed that the NSPCC wasn't that interested if it wasn't a "campaign"', and still don't see anything to that effect in the links you so helpfully supplied.

In contrast to a quick Google, I have actually read the report of the Climbie enquiry that discusses all these documents and the sequence of events. The centre mentioned in the BBC link you mention was a partnership centre all the social workers were employees of the social services, although the centre manager was an NSPCC employee. The only criticism of the centre (and hence the NSPCC) in the inquiry report was about its record-keeping. There was a question left open over the notes made by Sylvia Henry (Social Services employee) on the case file it was unclear whether she had been misinformed by Social Services, had misunderstood what Social Services told her, had delayed contacting Social Services for several months, or had done nothing at all at the time and then added a note to her records after Victoria's death. The inquiry explicitly did not find that any one of these four possibilities was more or less likely than any other.

Still, none of that has anything to do with not being interested in anything other than campaigns.

Just one point that my mum informed me of when she was regularly reporting children she taught as victims of child abuse - NSPCC aren't allowed to get involved in a case where Social Services are involved - I don't know if this is the same now (this was 6-7 years ago that she was doing this).

referring back to the OP and sorry if this has all been said but I think it IS right that something this distressing should land on our doorsteps. It's really happening to real children perhaps in our own streets, but half the time the way society is, ensures that it's invisible to us; anything that makes us unable to ignore it is great in my view. Our sensibilities being hurt do not matter as much as the minds and bodies of children being hurt.

But I don't think they should just target certain people, we should all get this stuff.

HRHQoQ, re your comments about CEO's etc it is worth bearing in mind that these people are often not just running the fundraising arm of the business but the actual work of the charity to.

To give an example, Prof Alex Markham is CE of Cancer Research UK and is probably on a fairly hefty salary, BUT he is one of the most highly qualified and respected cancer researchers and oncologists in the world, and has spent years studying and working to get tyo that stage.Surely he (and his comtempories) are worthy of their salaries.

It is true that you ahve to pay to get expertise in the fundraising fieled too. I do believe passionately abouyt the cause I work for and at this stage in my life cannot imagine working anywhere elase. However I do a challenging job, managing an income budget of £4 million+ and a team of staffa nd do not feel guilty drawing a salary for doing that. I find it astounding atht there is still an image that charities sre still run by volunteers with collecting tins!

Sorry for typos, can't type and rant at the same time!!

One of the cancer charities did the best charity campaign I have seen (I say that as a rather hardened ex marketing bod).

It revolved around an idyllic image of children running through fields of grass, laughing and playing. No commentary, a bit of pleasant music and just a written statement about the statistical likelihood of the child/children getting cancer at some point in their life.

It's difficult to convey in writing how powerful and effective the campaign was, but I thought at last someone has found a way to reach me without making me feel like shite in the process.

Haven't read the thread but I am pissed off with the latest NSPCC leaflets stuffed in every magazine and newspaper I read showing mock birthday cards and describing abuse inside. Makes me about 10 x LESS likely to donate tbh.

ooh, I worked for Wavv Wrapp Collins briefly years ago, tossers.