NSPCC ad - How can i stop her abuser with just one click?

[ruty]

I find this kind of advertising emotional blackmail and dishonest to boot. Ds,4, was looking and asked what the ad was about, he was worried about the girl. How do the NSPCC prevent or curtail child abuse, can anyone let me know? Anyone else dislike the advert?

quite a few threads about the NSPCC - the answer is IFIK no-one knows how they help. Do a MN search to find more info

I heard a man on the radio this morning talking about the NSPCC. I think he was the Acting chief executive. He was talking about the awful case of Baby P and saying that social workers shouldn't be criticised as it's very very difficult to spot these cases. For ages in the interview, he just wouldn't say what the NSPCC thinks should actually happen, ie, what should be done, and it reminded me of many comments here like yours ruty.

Eventually, he talked about more training for social workers and that such people need to work in a culture where they can afford to less risk averse, ie that they feel they can speak out when they see possible cases of abuse. That was it.

I still don't really know what the NSPCC do. I wonder if anyone here has been helped by them, or seen their services around?

personally i feel that the NSPCC shouldn't exist. The sort of work they advertise that they do should be done through government funds not through the kindness of the British public. it should not be reliant on charitible donations.

i had a look furball but obviously didn't look well enough! Something about their ads i hate - very exploitative. almost voyeuristic, and aiming for a knee jerk reaction - i for one ould rather know what exactly they do in an ad than see another child acting out a dreadful scene.

i had a look furball but obviously didn't look well enough! Something about their ads i hate - very exploitative. almost voyeuristic, and aiming for a knee jerk reaction - i for one ould rather know what exactly they do in an ad than see another child acting out a dreadful scene.

i had a look furball but obviously didn't look well enough! Something about their ads i hate - very exploitative. almost voyeuristic, and aiming for a knee jerk reaction - i for one ould rather know what exactly they do in an ad than see another child acting out a dreadful scene.

oops

that is the general view ruty - see here

I did some advertorial work with the NSPCC when I worked at a teen mag. They had a 90 (yes 90) page document on corporate branding including such gems as exactly how much white space (to the mm) has to go around their logo. That's where people's well-intentioned £££ is going.

as far as i can see, all the nspcc does is promote the nspcc and provide work for the employees of the nspcc. I would love to be proved wrong.

a fair amount of people are finding the emotional blackmail aspect of their ads totally off putting , they are shooting themselves in teh foot

No I don't like it - same as the recent RSPCA one. It is emotional blackmail and I refuse to come into it.

I give money to charities but I will ALWAYS make sure it is a local one that I know the money will go to the animals/people that its intended and won't be spent on more advertising that'll make me feel rotten.

I don't like that advert. It feels voyeuristic/exploitative. I wish it wasn't on MN.

Must be a horrible job for a child to do(act the role of the little girl), I'm sure it is all managed super-carefully, but I wouldn't want one of mine to do it.

stardazzle I completely agree - charities shouldn't fulfill essential functions in society; these matters are the government's responsibility. I know that local authorities and central government often contract out functions to charities, as they are trusted names, which is all well and good - however, the charities still have to raise other funds to complete their work, which sees immoral when the issues are as serious as child protection.

I've always worked for charities so perhaps I am shitting on my own doorstep, but I do feel that they shouldn't need to exist for such important issues. Fine for rare breeds conservation or bat protection or whatever, but not for children at risk.

Couldnt agree more, crushagrape. Also with Hecate that they only seem to exist to "raise awareness" and keep themselves in jobs. AFAIK, they have no statutary powers to intervene, and just pass on concerns to social services. I think I am being a bit cynical, but those ads piss me right of and I don't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt while feeling curmudgeonly!

and very interesting to hear MegBusset's story too. Arses.

I dont like it as someone who was abused I used to support NSPCC but they kept upping the amount they took which I couldnt afford and all info I found was about advertising. However having said that when I worked in mental health they used to part fund a young carers programme that I referred a couple of families on to. I am not sure what percentage they funded though and how much was obtained elsewhere.

Have have personal experience of having to try and use the NSPCC.. they were very helpfully not able to help either of children I had called them about. ( and yes I knew what was going on.. and what happened after.. but i'll leave the details out). Anyway the up shot was, they could do nothing about the person causing the issues because there was a court order saying that this person was to have access to the children.
It was sorted out in the end.. but the NSPCC did not help in the matter. Which in my opinion had they stepped in, maybe a report from them would have helped when the court order was reviewed or made sure that these children were safe in the meantime.