KRITIQ, yes, my beef is with the NSPCC. I don?t dislike the charity. In fact, I respect it. I think they are being done a disservice by their press office and therefore children are being done a disservice.
A great deal of information was gathered through this FOI request. I don't dispute its accuracy and I don't believe it has been misrepresented.
But I do not believe it has not been used effectively.
I do strongly believe the NSPCC should be, as you say, 'investing in awareness - raising or trying to influence policy'. They may have done that with professionals in the field of child abuse but they did not do that for the wider public.
That is their job.
The figures were not widely circulated and are contained in a research report which is not accessible to ordinary people - that includes journalists who do not have the time or inclination to rummage for information. No matter what you think of that, it's true.
I'm glad you think the Jon Brown's article is jargony and befuddling. That's not a particular failing of his. It is the job of a press officer to make his words accessible while maintaining accuracy.
Like you I've seen some awful press releases. That's not an excuse. This is an important job and it wasn't done.
They failed to persuade news organisations to pick up the story let alone report more widely on the issue of child sexual abuse than most people's definition of a child eg someone very young.
It is not the NSPCC who are 'perpetuating myths'. I apologise. Those were my words. But it is the job of the press office to dispel myths, or more properly, widely-held perceptions. They did not do this.
I accept they have little control over news reports but it is their job to try. On the evidence here I don't think they've tried. The NSPCC is a high-profile charity with respected views. I find it difficult to believe news organisations wouldn't be interested in their message if that message was conveyed properly.
I agree with you that a child is someone aged up to 19. Many people do not grasp that. It is the press office's job to help them to.
The fact that most journalists don't rummage is an advantage because you can lead them wherever you want as long as you back it up with evidence.
Evidence like two thirds of abuse happening to teenagers, most of whom are female, some of whom may not be garner much sympathy from the general public because of their personal circumstances.
It is the NSPCC's job to make people aware that abuse doesn't happen only to sympathetic victims - that's my word again - but I don't know how else to describe people many people might not have much love for but who they should care about.
The only national coverage I could see was Sky's cliched view of a playroom, and use of the figure of one-third which related to children under 11.
They did use someone who had been abused to her late teens but her story reinforced the view that sex abuse starts with a young victim and happens in a domestic setting.
I've heard her story before. I'm not belitting her experience or disputing her right to keep describing it, but it's the NSPCC's job to provide other voices and different experiences.
As I've said, they have no control over editorial decisions but they could try to influence them.
I do apologise for calling it a survey. It is accurate to use Jon Brown's descriptions which are investigations or a collation of figures.
Now it's my turn not to understand the point you're making
You say you think Jon Brown might not be overall head of strategy for the NSPCC. You might be right. But he is described as Head of Strategy and Development for Sexual Abuse and is the appropriate person to talk on this matter and was put up do it.
So what's your point? Do you think he wasn't the appropriate person? Do you think there was someone more appropriate? Surely, that's the decision of the NSPCC.
I do care about the issue. I work for a wage. My job is not in the field of child abuse but I do understand what's required from a press office.
NSPCC press officers are also being paid a wage. I don't know but imagine it's a pretty big department headed by a Director of Communications, his or her Deputy, a Communications Manager, possibly a deputy and some senior and junior press officers.
This costs a lot of money. Essentially, that's what I'm asking is my final paragraph - I don't think it's money well-spent.
Do you think these jobs should be done by volunteers or interested amateurs?
I don't. I believe they should be done by competent people on appropriate salaries for the sector. Undoubtedly they're being paid. But in this instance they are not competent.