Barrister Sarah Phillimore and the NSPCC

[christinarossetti19]

Sarah Phillimore has reported the NSPCC to the charities commission, as they refused to confirm that either the allegations made about wanking@work are false or that they are investigating matter.

As she says, this is another Oxfam or Kids Company waiting to happen. Thank you Sarah for devoting your expertise to this.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore

Totally agree that this is about the NSPCC response. As a national charity, if an issue about one of your employees is disclosed publicly, which impacts in any way on your work, you investigate. You STATE that you are investigating. It is not just about having rigorous procedures in relation to staff, but for these to be VISIBLE so that there is public confidence. In the same way that if this had happened in a social services office, the public would be entitled to know that the matter was taken seriously and being investigated. This is an important principle.

For NSPCC to firstly attack the whistleblower and then state that it is a “personnel issue” and no further comment will be made is outrageous. These people take public money and private donations. They have statutory powers in relation to safeguarding children. They are not a corner shop selling sherbet lemons.

Finally, for me, the obvious question then becomes that, given this is the response - defensive, secretive, arrogantly telling the public to mind their own business - did they know all about this anyway? The employees apparent indiscretion could mean that there was a culture that viewed certain behaviour as non problematic, that valued a version of “diversity” over and above common- sense judgement.? That had become blind to what any average, decent person would know was unacceptable behaviour.?

The fact that I am asking those questions and others are doing the same, means that public confidence in a charity which enacts government responsibilities is damaged. THAT is a huge issue.

As it is an organisation, I am told, with a £140 million yearly income and statutory powers to bring care proceedings, I chose to find this deeply concerning.

I think this is absolutely pivotal.

We must expect more from all charities concerned with child protection. But the NSPCC is the only child protection charity in the country with statutory power under the Children Act. It must be held to the highest of standards. The absolute highest.

The woeful showing over the past week or so - compounded by previous reluctance to engage here on MN itself - is of serious concern.

I'll support you, Spero, in whichever you decide is the best way forward.

Thank god someone is taking action over this. I have been very disappointed in the fact that this hasn’t been published in the newspapers. July 15th will be going in my diary too & I will definitely be supporting legal action.
Let’s give these people no where to hide.

Quite.

As the NSPCC itself says, safeguarding and children 'is everybody's business'.

We can only hope that the MSM 'won't touch this' because they think it's all about someone wanking in a toilet at work, rather than the NSPCC's abuse of their own processes and accountability.

That's what they need to recognise there is no hiding from.

The Countess of Wessex is patron of the NSPCC, how about a letter to her highlighting what is going on and what her name and reputation is associated with?

You've got to think NSPCC culture is way off track when 150 employees felt it was right to petition the dropping of MB on safeguarding grounds.
www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/11/munroe-bergdorf-nspcc-staff-condemn-decision-to-cut-ties-with-trans-activist

Yes, I think it was on the back of the MB letter that the NSPCC were so quick to publically virtue signal that 'our people' are our priority, and smear people who raised concerns as 'bullies'.

Which probably does speak volumes about the systemic and ideological incoherence and wobbliness of the ways that the NSPCC is being run, and where their priorities lie.

Their procedures must be open to public scrutiny - there is no higher responsibility than that of protecting children.

Spero, in terms of MSM there were probably only two candidates anyway. The Mail and the Times.

I could see why the Times might have backed off, at least temporarily. They had the Janice Turner spat/article and knew the Mermaids piece was coming up. Any more and accusations of a witchhunt would have gained resonance. As it is the Mermaids piece should help, as it seems to be another example of poor professionalism and a failure to centre safeguarding.

I have pondered over the Mail. They dont often do much analysis. Instead they like to write about a person, preferrably female, and accompanied by a sad face photo.

Their story would be along the lines of "Countess of Wessex embarrassed by rubber boy wanker..." or a similar click bait headline, with an appropriate photo of the Countess looking sad.

The person most likely to write it up, I think, is James Kirkup. Perhaps as a follow up to his current blog post. It might sit well with his interest in the democratic process.

I’m in for a crowdfunded.

The fact the press will “not touch this” is indeed, chilling. It’s as if the report into Oxfam, didn’t just happen! The press should be all over this.

Thank you again all. Once again it is sobering to see just how much of what is important is being lead by mumsnet, rather than by our elected politicians or our journalists.

I have pondered over the Mail. They dont often do much analysis. Instead they like to write about a person, preferrably female, and accompanied by a sad face photo.

Their story would be along the lines of "Countess of Wessex embarrassed by rubber boy wanker..." or a similar click bait headline, with an appropriate photo of the Countess looking sad.

That really isn't true. They've done loads of excellent news reporting. Look at the brilliant interview Sanchez Manning of the MoS did with Helen Watts about Girlguiding UK. Or their report on Karen White. Or the stories they did about Kids Company when it collapsed. Or indeed their reporting of the Savile case when that came out - it was much more extensive than any of the other papers.

My best guess is that they've been frightened off by threats of legal action.

I am concerned that this is EXACTLY what has happened. The real story here is obvious and from the NSPCC's own bloody Twitter feed. That no journalist will touch it is disgraceful.

Where or when did the NSPCC ask people to delete evidence?

Thanks for all you’ve done so far Spero, I’ve been following you on Twitter with admiration of your dealings with “tenacious beardy blokes”

Whilst they’re not “mainstream” media as such, Private Eye, The Spectator and The New Stateman have run some meaty articles around these topics. I wonder if it’s worth trying to talk to Miles Goslett, who broke the Kids Company scandal?

1984, that was my take on the NSPCC's statement of "We’re also reporting these to Twitter and recommend you do too".

They wanted to ensure that those Tweets (that raised the safeguarding concern) were deleted from Twitter.

Ahh, Spero – thought I recognised the name.

I'm another long-time fan of your child protection work.

You have my gratitude and a donation when you need it.

Well done Sarah. Do let us know as and when you need the donation bucket passed round.

Another one ready to donate - thanks for doing this

RoyalCorgi, all that is true. However if you scroll through the Mailonline a lot of their stories start with the personal. So the Girl Guiding story featured Helen. The "hate" police questionings heavily featured Kate Scottow or Caro. Ditto the Yorkshire lesbian thrown out of a pub was pictured wearing her Adult Human Female T Shirt. (Sorry, I forgot her name.) It's almost always some form of human interest. The DM sad face is known for a reason.

I think both the Times and the Mail will report it when the lines are clearer and depending on the NSPCC and the Charities Commission responses. The Mail, interalia has quite a thing about the woke culture in charities administration and has written stories about both the NT and the RNLI, essentially reporting clashes of culture between traditional volunteers (their readers) and the people who move in and out of well paid top charity jobs (presumably Guardian readers). The thing is that Mail readers are probably a good source of charity bequests. I have not yet forgiven the NSPCC and others for the skip load of marketing stuff I had to clear from my mother's flat I assume there are some interesting conversations going on, more following the Mermaids bombshell and I think they will want an angle that will appeal to readers who scroll through in their coffee break.

Very interesting - and another who will contribute to a crowdfunder.

It is also worth individuals still filing a complaint to the NSPCC (partly as that's a pre requisite to any subsequent complaint to the Charity Commission).

One of the issues that might be worth asking / complaining about is, IF it is true that the NSPCC were aware of sexual acts being carried out and filmed in the workplace prior to last week, whether they fulfilled their duty of care to staff by ensuring that none of them were exposed in any way to such degrading acts - deliberately or accidentally. The second question is whether, once knowing about the acts, they promptly carried out risk assessments to ensure how many times this occurred, whether the behaviour was replicated off site and whether there is any possibility that children could have been in the vicinity. Given the range of organisations and children that the NSPCC works directly with, it is reasonable to ask whether any children were present in the building at the time and if so, could they have been impacted by the alleged acts.
As this is the country's leading safeguarding charity, it is proportionate to ask.

Thank you. I will keep my eyes peeled mid July and contribute to a fund.

The way 150 employees publicly went straight to knee jerk 'poor munro' without weighing up the actual conflict of interest her previous public statements posed, was an eye opener. Then I couldn't believe what they tweeted in response to this story. It was alarming.

Well done and thank you.

Thank you for your integrity. I will support a crowdfunding case.

Also remember the NSPCC employee happy to label an enquiring mother a terf when writing on twitter. The mother was concerned about the Girl Guides policy on safeguarding. If they were happy to do that publicly it suggests that many more staff may share his view and have an unacceptable take on safeguarding

Thank you for doing this spero I will also contribute to any crowdfunder on this as it’s too important to be ignored/ swept under the carpet