Is NSPCC school guidance for kids re sexual abuse shifting the Overton Window? Need expert advise to break this down.

[DJLippy]

I was hoping for some feedback from mumsnetters who have experience with child safeguarding/development. I was alarmed by the wording of the explanation of sexual abuse that is being given to children by the NSPCC as part of their "Stay Safe, Speak Out" schools programme. It seems to be suggesting that it is only abuse if a child is "frightened or worried."

learning.nspcc.org.uk/services/speak-out-stay-safe/

Surley this organisation should understand how abusers groom children? They often do not feel upset at the time - they have been trained to please their abusers. If this training is designed to help children speak out why does this advice seem to not understand the reality of CSE? The childs reaction to sexual contact is irrelevant children cannot consent. This makes me feel very uncomfortable. From recent events it seems employees do not understand the basics of child safegaurding and are more concerned with supporting staff than investigating wrong doing. Furthermore this explanation of CSE differs to the one given more generally on their website to adults.

"The explanation given to children differs from the one that can be found elsewhere

A child is sexually abused when they are forced or persuaded to take part in sexual activities.

This doesn't have to be physical contact and it can happen online. Sometimes the child won't understand that what's happening to them is abuse.

They may not even understand that it's wrong. Or they may be afraid to speak out."

I was hoping to hear from those with experience of child development or safeguarding. Obvioulsy speaking about sexual abuse with children is difficult because you can accidentally traumatise or sexualise them. I appreciate that discussions muct be sensitive and age appropriate.

My concern is that the language we use to discuss child rape has shifted significantly in the past few years. The press often reframe CSE as "sex with child prostiutes." (i.e in the Oxfam aid scandal.) Time and again the press obfuscate the reality with language that neutralises the power imbalances and subsequent abuse. Am I jumping to conclusions or are your spidey senses tingling as well?

If I wanted to argue this advice was bang out of order I would like some back up with facts and figures and analysis from the experts. Mumsnet - do your thing!

Experienced & trained (level 3 NSPCC ) in safeguarding in schools.

I share the unease about the wording of this and am particularly concerned having seen the NSPCC's recent actions in advocating the removal of sex segregated spaces, refusing to speak out about organisations undermining key aspects of safeguarding (confidentiality, parental alienation, advocating self harming activities such as breast binding) alongside the emerging scandal about NSPCC staff and sexually inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.

But I do want to see the context - ie what is said before and after this statement in the publication. As you state so clearly, the challenge is to present information to young children in an age appropriate way and sometimes, in trying to simplify issues, we do inadvertently lose certain key information.

If the standard definition in every other NSPCC publication includes the relevant information about consent, adult responsibility etc, then I am likely to think it's unintentional and trying to simplify a challenging issue (badly). However, given their current appalling reputation, it is right to treat this with great suspicion and wonder whether this is another sign of the sinister appropriation of the charity by those working to deliberately weaken our safeguarding frameworks for children.

Can I just say that I have the utmost admiration for your stance on this and have seen the unfair treatment you've received on twitter because of it. You are a true warrior woman.

I'm by no means an expert. Just have an interest in child safety. The rewording of language concerning this is abhorrent. I'm sure there are many professionals on here that could assist you. I hope my reply helps bump this to their attention.

What I can say is that children have a built in survival instinct. It is entirely personal to them. People (read predator) pleasing, acting out (rebellion) or disassociation are all very different but valid responses to abuse. I only say this as while it's good to point out how badly they have misinterpreted a "people pleasing" response. It would probably help to show how it is just as valid as these others. Also I imagine that the child would have a lot of guilt/self blame for having that type of response, particularly once they reach the reality of what has occurred.

Jeez, my response is garbled, I've been struggling with a bad cold/bad sleep past few nights and it is way past my bedtime. I hope you can manage to translate my word salad. Best of luck.

This is a good thread

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1139142654191702016

I wasn't frightened or worried when my abuser made me suck him off, I was confused. Then I was made to believe I had nothing to worry about. But if I told anyone what I'd done I'd have nowhere to live.
I never told anyone.

It needs to be plain speak.
Touching genitals / being asked to show your genitals etc. The original definition of sex sbuse works fine.

share the unease about the wording of this and am particularly concerned having seen the NSPCC's recent actions in advocating the removal of sex segregated spaces, refusing to speak out about organisations undermining key aspects of safeguarding (confidentiality, parental alienation, advocating self harming activities such as breast binding) alongside the emerging scandal about NSPCC staff and sexually inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.

I find this extremely worrying.

Yes, this is extremely concerning as it shifts the focus from the wrongful behaviour of the adult to the reaction of the child.

We've all seen adult women who are confused about whether they were abused or not, due to socialisation.

I think there needs to be an enquiry into the NSPCC now.

I'm not an expert either but agree with you 100%, just based on speaking to survivors of CSA. Children believe what adults tell them at the time. Sometimes the reaction to CSA kicks in years later; a girl I knew was a seemingly happy well adjusted child, despite several years of CSA in early childhood. In her teens she suffered enourmous mental health problems, drug addiction, problems with boundaries and keeping herself safe, allowing bad people into her life and massive self harm.
The guidelines have no need to be vague, or based on children's feelings or opinions. Its enough to say any romantic or sexual (genital) contact, including kissing and the viewing of pornographic material, imposed on children is abuse.
It's really not hard to say to children "nobody but you touches your bits, no adult has the right to ask you to keep a secret, and adults are only allowed to have boyfriends and girlfriends who are also adults."
The whole NSPCC thing is increasingly sinister. It's enough to make you start believing in conspiracy theories tbh.

I think there needs to be an enquiry into the NSPCC now.
Now. Yesterday in fact.

Also lots of legitimate things adults do might make a child feel somewhat frightened or worried. Like being told someone is ill or had died. Or for some children just being told off for misbehaving at school. We can try and help them deal with things but cannot protect them from all negative feelings.
For an abused child, if the abuse is discovered, what follows can be more frightening or worrying than the abuse.
What a confusing message this sends.

My school friend was raped by her father from the age of about 13 ( could have been younger, my feeling is that it was, but I don’t know ) right through university. She lived alone with him, and he had groomed her to the extent that they were like a couple. She carried on “choosing” to live with him into her twenties. She committed suicide at 30.

I think there needs to be an enquiry into the NSPCC now

Completely agree with this but I don’t think it will happen until the general public get to hear about the latest problems with safeguarding & staff behaviour. At the moment all the outrage is on the internet.

My opinion FWIW is that there is too much implied meaning in that definition such that on its own it doesn’t really tell you what CSA actually involves. I get that it needs to be written in a child appropriate manner but also needs to be clear in its meaning. I think it needs completely rewriting.

That is heartbreaking SirVixofVixHall

It is worrying because it is part of the Stay Safe, Speak Out campaign. This is the information that is being communicated to children.

This is the important part of the accurate, lawful, definition with regard to this: Sometimes the child won't understand that what's happening to them is abuse.

So the subtle change in the Stay Safe, Speak Out campaign about wrong behaviour only being something that frightens the child may well result in children not making disclosures and abuse going undiscovered.

It also has unpleasant slippery slope implications on consent of minors.

This is the message the altered wording sends:

If Mr Person at Children's Club keeps lifting up your t-shirt and tickling you and you don't like it, you should tell someone.

But also:

If Mr Person at Children's Club keeps lifting up your t-shirt and tickling you and you laugh cos tickling makes you laugh and, after all, Mr Person has told you lots of times what good friends you are, there's no need to tell anyone.

It's blindingly bloody obvious - to everyone but the NSPCC, apparently - that children should be taught to disclose in both situations. This is basic, basic, stuff.

Something I picked up from what somebody else said is this notion of sexual activity being 'imposed' on a child. If a child has been groomed, they may well think they are, and/or seem to be, completely willing to take part in their abuse. They may seem like the activity isn't being imposed on them at all. Because they don't know that they've been groomed and they don't know the behaviour isn't normal, and that not everyone does it.

As a PP said, CSE is surely any sexual activity between a child and an adult/older child. There is no need to talk about how it feels. That it is happening is the problem.

It looks like a problem to me.

If I wanted to take a best intentions approach I would surmise that they wanted to cover things that might not obviously scream abuse but which were done in a way that frightens the child. Or they were trying to use simple language.

But it's not useful as a definition, it says bth too little and too much.

That was me Lougle I think I meant "imposed on" from my point of view, not the child's but I wasn't clear.
I did say though that children need to be told very plainly what is right and wrong with no vague reference to feelings, so I agree with you.
Langs scenario with Mr Person is exactly why this guidance needs changing urgently. So much abuse happens at the hands of people children actually like and trust, not some shady slobbering weirdo in a mac. In fact imo the betrayal and confusion of boundaries is one of the worst things abusers do. It makes children think they are complicit and consenting, which is just evil.

FROM THE WEBSITE RESOURCES

What we cover: key stage 1 and primary 1-3
We hold a 30-minute assembly, covering the topics below, for children in key stage 1 (reception and years 1 and 2) and primary 1-3.

Meet Buddy - The children meet Buddy, a friendly, green speech bubble who believes that children should be able to speak out to someone if they're worried or unhappy.

MORE RE-FRAMING from advice for KS 2-3

What's worrying you?
Children get involved and discuss some of the reasons why a child may feel sad, worried or anxious and need someone to talk to.

Yes it’s really badly worded and needs changed for all the reasons outlined on this thread. Thanks for highlighting.

Who are the NSPCC trustees? Do any of them understand child safeguarding?

This is a link to what I am fairly certain is the programme overview for the Speak Out, Stay Safe Programme.

www.st-michaels.surrey.sch.uk/application/files/4415/0832/1522/NSPCC-Speak_out_Stay_Safe_Content.pdf

It appears that in key stage one they teach that "Privates are private: Sometimes people may want children to do things with their bodies which might make them feel uncomfortable or unsure. Sometimes this involves the private parts of the body, which are the parts covered by underwear."

In the key stage two assembly a voice over introduces the definitions of abuse

"Sexual Abuse: When a child is being made, asked, or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them – or being made to do this to somebody else. It can involve touching, kissing or being made to show private parts of the body, or being made to do this to another person. It can involve being shown inappropriate films or pictures in books, magazines, on TV, mobiles phones or online. The private parts of the body are those covered by underwear."

I think that it is noticeable how this definition contrasts with the definition for physical abuse for example, which does not require the child to be upset or feel worried. Also the emphasis is much more on what the abuser is doing.

"Physical Abuse: This is when someone deliberately hurts or injures a child’s body. This could be by kicking, biting, hitting, shaking or leaving marks. Physical abuse may cause pain, cuts, bruising and/or broken bones."

This difference can also be seen in the definition of neglect and bullying and even in the definition of emotional abuse.

Children in year 5/6 also have a workshop where there are given 5 statements to decide if OK or not. These are:
"Someone says that what is going on is a secret.
Someone watches or touches a child, when the child doesn’t want them to.
A family member gives a child a kiss goodnight.
Someone shows or sends a child an inappropriate film or message. This could be face to face or online."

The NSPCC definition of sexual abuse is then given again.

I think that the definition is very wrong as not only is it unhelpful for those children who have been groomed to not be concerned about the abuse but it is also unhelpful as I think that many children have not yet developed enough awareness to be worried in the first place, especially if the abuse is carried out by someone who otherwise seems kind to them.

I also think that for some sexually abused children this definition will add to their shame that they let the abuse happen because clearly 'normal' children would know it was wrong and be upset by it. Therefore the abuser is right when he says that they wanted it etc.

I think that this could actually result in children being less likely to disclose to someone. Shame is a powerful deterrent to disclosing.

Dp, Vix

Who are the NSPCC trustees? Do any of them understand child safeguarding?

One of the Trustees of the NSPCC with responsibility for safeguarding is Dr Joanna Begent: [email protected]

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-us/organisation-structure/

That's really really interesting, the stark difference between the way physical(violence) abuse and sexual abuse is framed chicken.
It's almost as though the definition of CSA is seen by the NSPCC as subjective. And there are prominent people -Peter Tatchell comes to mind-who are pushing that notion.
Also your point about adding to children's shame is heartbreaking to think about and spot on.