NSPCC Sex Crime Survey

[limitedperiodonly]

The news coverage majors on 'child abuse' which accounts for one third of offences.

We know that translates as 'little kids' = 'innocent victims'.

Two thirds of offences are recorded against people aged between 11-17.

I'm a journalist. I know news organisations will translate this as jailbait at best, manipulative scum at worst. Boys or girls.

That's why they don't want to touch it.

But I haven't seen anything on TV today from the NSPCC to try to say these are all vulnerable young people who are being fucked, trafficked and murdered.

I may be wrong and I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. Can anyone do that?

As it stands the NSPCC should be ashamed of itself to perpetuate the myth that there are worthy victims of 'child abuse' and the less-deserving others no matter how much money they hope to raise.

Otherwise they should save the money this survey cost and put it into playgroups.

I'm still not entirely getting it (and I learned about the 35 word paragraph limit and not using the Oxford Comma in high school journalism - thank you Mr Gwaltney!)

I'm still with victorialucas on this. I honestly didn't get the same impression as the OP that NSPCC either by design or omission were "ignoring" the spectre of child sexual abuse affecting children over 11, or that it affected girls six times more than boys. Both of those facts were set out clearly in the original article and in most of the media reports about it. So Jon Brown has the media savvy and charisma of a cane toad. There seems to be a disconnect between insisting that NSPCC should have more media savvy peeps to front their stories, but then arguing that they are spending too much on things like that.

I have mixed feelings about large children's charities, and large institutions of any kind. However, even if we accept (and I don't actually) that this story was a gaffe, a missed opportunity, what about all the other studies that they have commissioned like those on child trafficking (pointing out clearly that it's girls more than boys who are affected,) and the report I linked above about abuse in teen relationships?

That report in particular pulls NO punches when it comes to the gendered nature of abuse in teen relationships. Many of the studies I've read about sexual bullying and abuse in young people's relationships tend to gloss over this or at least not highlight it as an important factor when it IS the most important factor. So, NSPCC has stuck it's collective neck out on gender based violence before. The same report recommends a complete re-think as well of teen pregnancy prevention strategies, acknowledging that it's pointless ticking off pregnant girls when many have no actual control over when, how or with whom they have sex!

It's also not just about getting column inches (or whatever the equivalent is in digital terms) for a story. It takes more than a cleverly worded article to shift public opinion on an issue enough so that they will demand change. I think the general public prefer to bury their heads in the sand about child abuse over all and maybe worse, try to rationalise that sexual abuse of those in the teen years isn't maybe really all that bad.

In my experience, if you are trying to get support for policy change related to what will be a pretty "unpopular cause" amongst the public, you can waste alot of valuable time, resources and energy trying to persuade Jo and Joanne public to back you. Small campaign groups like Southall Black Sisters and Justice for Women have gone straight to decision makers, presenting them with evidence, and achieved significant changes, despite "popular opinion" still not giving much of a toss about things like forced marriage or women who kill their partners after years of abuse. If they'd just relied on convincing "the public" to rally in support of their causes, we'd still be waiting, for a long time.

So, evidence from research commissioned by organisations like NSPCC can be used to influence decision makers - whether its arguing for funding for prevention or support services or getting laws changed. As a journalist, you found "Standing On My Own Two Feet" a "turn off, but it wasn't intended for you or for the general public with a goldfish span of attention.

Thanks for coming back to me Nyas, KRITIQ and victoria.

victoria I'm not annoyed at the spin on the story by Sky. I expect it. I've done the same under orders by news editors.

What annoys me is that the NSPCC's press office appears not to anticipated it by specifically addressing the complexity of abuse suffered by teenage girls and dropping the under-11s for a while.

That is not by design but is their fault.

Some of these people will be former journalists. Or at least they should be. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the office is staffed by people who don't understand how newsrooms work but know how they'd like them to work.

They could also have taken the stance of refusing to co-operate unless Sky, for instance, specifically talked about this issue. Maybe Jon Brown did talk about that and it was cut. What a press officer should have said is: 'No. We're talking only about this or we don't talk at all. These are our case histories. We'll do little kids next time but right now, this is our priority.'

KRITIQ it's shorter for me to say we agree in principle because I think we do. My issue here is one of professionalism by the NSPCC press office. I wonder what they think they get paid for and I wonder what they are advising senior policy staff about the media and 'disappointing' outcomes.

It's true I found Standing On My Own Two Feet a turn-off. That should be anticipated and something more accessible should be produced in tandem for reporters.

Anyway, your mention of Southall Black Sisters is really interesting. I agree that they worked with opinon-formers in parliament, local authorities and the police to influence policy change.

But they didn't neglect the press. I worked in Redbridge, Newham and Tower Hamlets and they were assiduous in cultivating friendly contacts with us and helping on the cultural aspects of stories that as a white girl from an all-white, lower-middle class background I had no idea of.

One story I remember would have got reported as a bizarre and titillating murder if not for them. A young Asian woman was found in the street in Forest Gate with ultimately fatal chemical burns in the mid-80s.

The police knew her husband had done it but were unable to give more insight. They weren't that bothered beyond clearing up a murder.

Someone from SBS explained to me the concept of 'honour killings'. I had no idea this went on. Why would I? They didn't judge. They just explained.

At the trial it transpired the woman had been taken to the workshop of a family friend and pushed alive into a barrel of sulphuric acid. The intention was to torture her as well as killing her. If they'd have pushed the lid down properly they'd have probably been able to dispose of what remained of her.

SBS's guidance resulted in a much more knowledgeable crime report. I'm not saying I'm a hero. I'm not saying the paper made much more of it after. But SBS patiently spoon-fed me because they knew I didn't understand but realised that I did care and that helping me understand might pay off in time. They must have replicated this hundreds of times because nearly 30 years on everyone knows what 'honour killings' are and we've started to do something about them.

A similar thing happened with a social worker who explained one idea behind gay adoptions - placing a girl who'd been abused by men with a single woman or a female couple to protect everyone involved.

Undoubtedly you know what I'm talking about but I didn't then and most people don't now. But if you take the time to explain it to one receptive person they will go on about it every time someone comes out with the vile Littlejohn line. Because I do.

That's all I ask of press offices.

Thanks for reading.

Sorry to bang on about this but memories of SBS have made me think of something else which may be obvious to some people but not to the mainstream.

I was always struck by the violent methods of suicide taken by some Asian women - throwing themselves under trains, self-immolation or drinking drain cleaner.

It always struck me as: 'Fuck. That's painful.' BTW I am aware that those things could be murder.

Until I wondered about the options for relatively gentle death. How do you stockpile enough prescription drugs if your GP is from the same social group as your husband and family and is more sympathetic to them and the need for the group to save face than to you? Do you even get to go to the GP at all?

That's not a failing of SBS at all. They were fantastic and I'm sure they would have something to say if I was doing a story on that. But I don't do that any more and like everyone else, I'm busy earning a living. I'm just asking.

Obviously the news reports are going to major on the horrific cases.

Asian women who slip away on barbiturates aren't going to feature and white women jump off balconies or under trains. But still.

Do you know much about radical feminism limited.

It is the politics that address the extreme violence that men commit against women and girls. It could probably give you some answers.

Probably osmosis nyac. Experience of events that have happened to me or to others that I came into contact with through personal contact or work, which in my work gets blurred. But you can attain that contact through lots of work if you try.

Plus, my epitaph would probably be: 'Enquiring minds need to know'.

That or: 'How would you like to be remembered?'

Answer: 'By a public holiday, of course.'

nyac I read that as 'how do you know about radical feminism?' Didn't have my reading glasses on.

I come from a working class/lower middle class family who are very politicised.

I did a Women's Studies course that was an adjunct to my prestigious journalism course. We had to do other studies. I didn't want to do them. Didn't object either.

One of the others was woodwork which did teach me something I didn't know. I made a lovely articulated, hand-painted wooden child's toy of a frog and a turntable my mum used in her cake-decorating classes.

I don't think the college knew much else what to do with us. The rest of my Women's Studies group was taken up by young women on the nursery nursing course. The tutor should have done more to involve the other students rather than lazily embracing me and pushing at an open door.

These things affect all of us and it's the job of professionals to make it happen.