It's the defenders who horrify me. And I include the NSPCC themselves in that. Attacking those raising concerns about adult behaviour or weaknesses in vetting processes is utterly out of step with their mission. Combined with failing to offer even a 'we're looking further into this' holding statement, it means that they can no longer be trusted at all.
The changed NSPCC definition of child sex abuse which, as knowledgeable MNers on other threads have pointed out, subtly removes those children who have been groomed into confusion about what is going on, looks sinister. It may not be, but in the current climate of openly MAP accounts all over Twitter, the lack of challenge within institutions such as the Green Party to David Challenor, etc etc, it's not paranoid to wonder.
A PP said she was going to be having a conversation with her DC's headteacher withdrawing DC from an NSPCC assembly. I've sat through several as a teacher. They've all been run by people who appear completely unthreatening and the basic messages are sound. However, this is the base on which trust in the organisation as a whole is built. We're in Schools, we're on the BBC, we're part of the establishment community. Perhaps if very large numbers of us withdrew DCs from fundraising for NSPCC and assemblies run by them, and made clear it was because we had concerns about the NSPCC's approach to safeguarding and defining CSA, we might get some attention focused on what really matters.