To me the most worrying thing is that the definition of child sex abuse has been quietly changed so it now refers to something which "upsets" the child. The whole point of grooming is that the child may not seem upset (at least, not at the time).
I completely agree 2BthatUnnoticed thousands upon thousands of primary school children have now been taught this incorrect, confusing and shaming definition of sexual abuse. The NSPCC plan to teach it to all primary school children which is more than 4 million. A vast number of those children will already be being sexually abused. I believe that the NSPCC claims that two children in every class are being or have been sexually abused.
As someone who was groomed and sexually abused as a child I know how I would have heard and then interpreted the NSPCC's definition of sexual abuse and it would certainly have not enabled me to stop or disclose the abuse. In fact, even if I had had the maturity at the time to reinterpret how the NSPCC were defining sexual abuse to actually include what was happening to me - which I had been groomed to be unconcerned about, it would then have just added to the many reasons why I did not feel able to disclose what was going on. There is no way the definition would have helped me to disclose if I had then thought that 'normal' children were frightened by sexual abuse and clever enough to recognise it when it occurs. What child will want to disclose abuse if they are thinking that their lack of a fear response to sexual abuse means that they were either too stupid to recognise abuse or that their abuser is right and that they actually wanted it.
I expect most abusers understand that the easiest way to sexual abuse a child is to ensure that, for a while at least, she thinks that what is happening to her is entirely unconcerning or even desired. Once the sexual abuse has occurred for long enough then even when the child does recognise what is happening and become upset by it then 'shame' will take over and prevent the child from disclosing or stopping the abuse. I really hate to say it , but in my opinion, the NSPCC are actually helping to do an abuser's job for them, with their definition. The NSPCC need to rectify this error immediately.
I sadly believe that the NSPCC's definition could contribute to children who are abused for longer. This utterly horrifies me and should horrify them.
This is of course, about so much more than a man who behaved in an awful way at work and online whilst working at the UK's leading child protection charity. This is about a culture at the NSPCC that is failing to sufficiently recognise and respond appropriately to their and their employees mistakes and wrongdoings.. A culture that is failing to understand and respect those who are pointing out safeguarding errors. It is also about a culture which appears to me, to be failing to properly understand and centre abused children in everything that it does.
I don't want the NSPCC to fail, I really don't. I just want it to do better for the sake of all vulnerable and abused children