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!

This programme is really odd because it's totally at odds with the definition of sexual abuse from the main website (my bold):

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.

That's why we're working to break the silence around child sexual abuse, and give children a voice when they desperately need support.

So they acknowledge that children don't always realise they're being abused but then in their training FOR CHILDREN, they tell them that it's only abuse if it makes them feel uncomfortable.

Shame is THE deterrent for some, confusion can convert to violation and then to shame. Some skeletons are not our own transgressions but the transgressions we endure and hold against ourselves. Broken trust builds impenetrable walls.

Thanks for the information @chickenonaMug

DpWm

This is such an important conversation to have. It's almost unbelievable how they've changed the definition to one that's not even remotely fit for purpose.

I’m a teacher and we have NSPCC in to school for the assembly etc. Thank you for raising this. It will be challenged next time they come knocking for their fundraising activity! The assembly is usually followed by a fundraiser.

So children are only abused if it makes them feel scared. Its really not a thing for adults to convince the child its something they want or whatever. The NSPCC know this, they have to. So quite why they have done this, I cannot see anything other than it being a sinister reason tbh. The NSPCC really needs to be looked at. I would request another webchat too to get everyones points across, however they ran away from the last one

I think for me what makes everything more sinister for me is that their (the NSPCC) ignorance of these issues is entirely the result of, at best, a poor effort to deliver a difficult message in an age appropriate way. At worst, it demonstrates that they have almost no understanding of safeguarding at all.

I am no expert, but it seems to be that robust safeguarding is developed from an attitude of constantly questioning why such and such a decision was made. Who does it benefit? Is it the correct decision? Are there any issues likely to arise which might affect those we are supposed to be protecting?

And my main concern about all of this: if FWR on Mumsnet can pull your policies to pieces in 20 posts, then shouldn’t you get down to Mumsnet PDQ and take on board the excellent advice from posters who are obviously experts? Why don’t the NSPCC seem to have the same level of expertise within the organisation? Is there an issue with their recruitment (it would seem so, looking at wanking man )

All hugely worrying.

Does anybody have any sources regarding the way that groups such as PIE attempted to re-frame CSA as non-consensual sex? I have read somewhere that they are very keen to draw a distinction between themselves and child rapists. It strikes me that the NSPCC definition is very close to the way paedophiles would like to define abuse. Does anbody have any links to articles which discuss the tactic (creating a distinction between consensual sex and rape)

PIE framed their demands as those of rights - child rights, liberal views, and free speech.

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

''The members' hotline for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) rang, of all places, inside the Home Office. The phone would be picked up by Steven Smith, a paedophile and member of the group who worked in security in Whitehall, from where he would tell callers where to go for the next meeting to discuss issues including decriminalising sex with children as young as four.''

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/26/lobbying-paedophile-campaign-revealed-hewitt

''The members' hotline for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) rang, of all places, inside the Home Office. The phone would be picked up by Steven Smith, a paedophile and member of the group who worked in security in Whitehall, from where he would tell callers where to go for the next meeting to discuss issues including decriminalising sex with children as young as four.''