That NSPCC ad: anyone else feel a twinge of guilt?

[Lizita]

Does anyone else "twinge" at the baby who is left crying at night with no one to come and comfort him? I am a bit confused by this advert because so many of us have practiced and still are practicing controlled crying. Of course, I know the advert is talking of something more sinister, but it doesn?t really give that impression at first. Like, just last night my dd (nearly 2 yrs old) awoke at 11pm and when it was clear she was standing up wide awake (crying and calling ?Mummy!? which always breaks my heart!) I went in, sang her night-night song and put her down again, and she continued crying for about 5-10 minutes before she went back to sleep. Ironically, that ad came on when I was waiting to see if she?d stop crying, and I thought, hang on! Am I doing what the ad is accusing me of? Rationally I know I?m not, but it is a bit ambiguous. (Esp as she has on the odd occasion awoken and I haven't gone in at all because it's obviously half-hearted moaning that puts her back to sleep without my intervention...) Does anyone else think that or am I just being silly?

but definitely think there should be more support for parents - people who are not abusive, just really stressed and isolated.

Thanks unicorn..I thought that too. I felt like I was judged and I didn't like it at all. I phoned them up for help and I got that reaction. I dunno, I'm sure the NSPCC do fantastic work but I feel that they are judgemental towards parents who maybe do find it hard. I know there is some apalling cruelty towards kids in our society and yes of course it must be stopped but they don't seem to me to ask why and what can we do to stop parents getting that far instead of just judging parents that do suddenly flip.

Does that make any sense to any one. I know what I'm trying to say. I hope it's not coming out wrong

nope - I understand you !
Perhaps parentline
here

maybe more understanding.

I agree.. when you need support- you don't need to feel that they are ready to take your kids away etc.

(been there with the stress - cat me if you ever want)

I always wondered what they did, too. You know, I always thought it'd be cool to have a charity that provided qualified nannies to parents who are vulnerable - have PND, are single, don't have family around, etc. Just to give them a little break and let them know they're baby/child is safe. Or maybe paid for music, art or dance lessons for a deprived child. Something like that.

bit off topic here but does anyone else hate the no smoking advert where the smoke comes out the children's noses/mouths?? If that doesn't make smokers think again I dunno what will.

I used to work in a large Hotel, and members of the NSPCC use to come for 4 day conferences twice a year, there was always about 100 of them, the conference room cost them £300 per day, and bedrooms were around £100 per night each.

This was all paid for by the NSPCC, not forgetting the extras i.e meals.

The NSPCC recieves no government funding, and the above cost about £50k (before wages) so how much of the money that thay recieve through handouts actually goes directly towards helping abused children?

I used to work for a small charity. Lots of good work is done by lots of charities, but IME there are an awful lot of people in the game for exactly what they can get out of it - financial, jollies, freebies, etc - and then they have the audacity to say how wonderful they are for working for a charity...

I know someone who got a leaflet from one charity soon after she'd had her first baby. I don't know if it was the NSPCC, but it said (roughly) "You've had a healthy baby, now how about donating to people who haven't been so lucky?"

I hate the NSPCC. I think it's an empire building, job-creating organisation that has stopped looking at its primary remit - to prevent real cruelty to children - and has strayed into territory it has no right to be in - telling parents not to smack, not to practice controlled crying, not to shout at their children - because all this is now cruelty. And their tone is an extremely judgemental one. An organisation like Parentline is much more sympathetic to parents. I just get the feeling that if the two organisations were people, the NSPCC would be the smug non-parent and parentline would be a parent.

Gosh, I never realised I felt that way about the NSPCC until now!

The little boy 'Miles' looks my a nephew of mine! same wan little face and tone of voice eventhough he's got a great mum. Boy does 'Miles' tug at my heartstrings when he goes 'mama'!

Great casting by the director of that ad.

I like what someone said that if social services got more money instead of charities that exist for the sake of existence.

I find the nspcc makes me uncomfortable too.

Is there is some independent agency which publishes research how much of a charity's budget goes on administration and how much on actual help? that would be a good way of deciding who to support.

i think the problem is sobernow that the ad would be more effective for me if it told us exactly what the nspcc do for preventing child crueltly, rather than just showing us images [i find exploitative] of upset children and asking for money.

The only charity which DH and I now support (we had to 'drop' some because of financial reasons) doesn't advertise on TV or radio AT ALL due to the high costs involved.

Did you know that 15.6% (£15.5 million) of the money raised by the NSPCC goes towards 'generating' funds

7.3% (£7.3 million) goes on "Support and cost of governance

and 76.4% (£76.4 million) goes on "Activites to end cruelty to children).

Now many could argue that "well they need to advertise to get money" but £15.5mil is a LOT of money IMO -

interesting sobernow, but i still think the money needs to be directed towards those workingat grass roots level - they can save lives.

Sobernow - none of the charities we have supported in the past give less than 80% of the money given to them direct to their causes.

The one we're supporting at the moment is a Sponsor a Child charity, and just over 80p from every £1 goes direct to the child, another percentage (not sure how much) is taken to pay for delivery the letters to and from the child to the sponsor and other 'admin' involved in keeping the child in touch with the sponsor and vice versa (we get a yearly photo of the child we're sponsoring, along with an 'update' on their progress at school and family life) - they send us the special paper (with section for translation) in the post, with a pre addressed envelope to their offices in Surrey(?), they ask if people can add a stamp to help with their costs (which we do), but then they definitely pay for the sending of the letter/flat parcel onto the child.

I don't know how the figures compare to the NSPCC but in the last financial year the total wages for the 17 memebers of staff (which according to our last quartlely magazine has now gone up to 21) was £410k - that means that even the managers couldn't have been earning that much.

we've been thinking of doing that QofQ, we're a bit broke but planning to do it soon.

Definitely worth it - it's lovely getting the pictures from her (she's just turned 6 and can't write letters yet so her mum writes the letters and she draws us pictures). It's been amazing hearing how much she's come on at school and socially since we started 2 1/2yrs ago.

I'm not saying they should work for 'peanuts' - but do if they want to work for a charity I don't think they should be expecting salaries up to 6 figures

Thank you unicorn for the offer to CAT you. Will certainly bear that in mind if things get on top of me like thet did!

Caligula think your post is spot on and I definelty agree that Parentline is much more sympathetic. I've certainly found them to be so in the past. Unfortunately though its quite hard to get through to them because of thier high call volume (or it used to be, don't know what it's like now)