NSPCC Again

[SunsetBeetch]

"Head of ‘child safety’ at the NSPCC. More parts of a terrible jigsaw now falling into place. Can you see what it is yet? t.co/nJKd5nYt1B "

"Bizarre and concerning response of NSPCC to those worried about the antics of one of its employees maybe not so much a mystery now t.co/N0KNloLCxl "

I'm not going to complain to the NSPCC - that'll get swept into the file marked bin. I'm going to write to the Minister for Children & Families and the Children's Commissioner.

Please can someone send me the links / screen captures to the abuse definition? I’m raising with MP at surgery tomorrow.

Lidl is currently fundraising for the NSPCC. I was asked to donate but just gave a flat NO,

It's here under the Key Stage 2 section - in the panel about sexual abuse

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

Thanks @timelady

NovoJester this is a link to the NSPCC/Childline Speak Out, Stay Safe content summary that is given to schools. It shows all the abuse definitions that are taught to children. I think that there is a stark contrast, for example, between the definitions of physical abuse and sexual abuse. The physical abuse definition is much more about what the abuser is doing to the child and does not rely on the child's response to the abuse whereas the sexual abuse definition seems to depend on how a child responds or feels about the abuse.

As someone who was groomed, sexually abused and raped by an adult male relative for many years of my childhood I find this definition of sexual abuse taught to children to be harmful and dangerous. Not only does it mean that a child may not realise that sexual abuse is happening to her (or him) as she has never felt frightened by the abuse due to grooming but also the definition has the potential to make an abused child feel ashamed that she did not react to the sexual abuse with the expected fear or worry. It risks a child concluding that either her abuser is right and and she wanted the abuse to happen and that she liked and consented to it. Alternatively it risks the abused child feeling that she is stupid or abnormal as clearly other children would have recognised the abuse enough to have responded appropriately with fear or worry. A child who feels ashamed is much less likely to disclose what is happening to herself. It is a very harmful definition to give children and it is a definition which predators can use to their advantage.

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

Chicken, you explain the problem with this so clearly

I remember you were going to contact them - did you receive any response? (Please don’t answer if you don’t feel comfortable discussing it here.)

Chicken you’re spot on, the definition serves only to confuse children and enable the continued abuse of groomed children. Widespread adoption in schools will leave a generation of children unable to speak out about abuse. The onus should never be on children to speak out but to support them in understanding inappropriate adult behaviour is solely the responsibility of the adult.
The NSPCC have lost their way and as a trusted, statutory body the implications are horrifying.

metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/im-10-years-into-my-transition-and-i-still-face-transphobia-every-day-10980451/

He's a laugh for you all! His smug face irritates me so much. Ever though that the mother of 2 has an issue because she doesn't want you privately messaging their child!? Compmete and utter dimwit

I'm aghast. This is horrifying. So not only is the NSPCC reframing for children what constitutes sexual abuse, it is employing/defending blokes who are at best lacking any sexual boundaries whilst having no doubt a fucking huge database of vulnerable children. The implications are making me feel sick.

Yes. And it has been like this for some time.

FWR has been trying to get it discussed for several years now but things are only getting worse.

I cannot emphasis enough: the NSPCC is the UK's only child protection charity with statutory powers.

Has anyone taking this up with the Charity Commission?

I'm late to the party and haven't read all comments here, is there a joint letter or petition we could sign or create? There seems to be enough here to send a co-ordinated challenge...is the investigation (started by Sarah Phillimore) still open and looking into the NSPCC as a whole?

My understanding was that it was about Rubberman and since he's been sacked would there then be a follow up as to how robust their recruitment procedures are and whether their meet safeguarding requirements?

As PP said we could also write to the Minister for Families and Children. I'd like to take action or support something that is already in progress.

Very, very scary. The implications are horrific.

The NSPCC is now telling children only to report (tell a trusted adult) if an adult touches them and it upsets them.

That is your bog standard, straightforward, grooming for abuse right there. It's nothing less. It's what Jimmy Savile was doing for years and getting away with it.

We now seem to have an entire charity that has given permission slips to all the other Jimmy Saviles out there. He may have been one man. But he wasn't unique.

I too feel sick about this. No way does this charity get anymore of our money.

chicken Thank you, that’s how I understood it after similar experiences to you.

What is the screening process when the NSPCC hires people? Do they just not ask about the person's attitudes towards sexual abuse of children during interviews? I'm trying to figure out how enough people got through the screening and interview process who think that children being touched sexually is only abuse if the child is immediately distressed for that to have become official policy.

I really, REALLY hated that video from CEASE which Pencils (?) posted not just because of the content, which is grim, but because of that man’s faux-matey tone. He’s on stage, at a conference aimed at tackling CSA, and he’s laughing. Chumming about on stage, matey matey, all a big joke. Trying too hard to put the crowd at ease. The crowd isn’t there to be fucking put at ease. They’re there to try and stop a few children from being sexually abused. It’s not a fucking joke. They don’t need to be convinced. Christ.

they get through because the whole organisation has already been infiltrated by a few queer theorists

Yes, this is what I think, the reason the organisation can recruit key positions with such Inappropriate people is because the leadership, policy and culture is already fully captured by a few very well placed individuals. The rest is just a matter of time.

I’ve been watching this unfold for some time and I believe we are looking at Trustee and Director level capture.

Chicken I agree with all you say. Strength to you.

Well connected and educated abusers don’t waste time trying to dodge those in power. They go in at the top, change the game and in the case of the NSPCC become the powerful. They are unchallenged, Teflon coated.

YY BadgerTheBodger. It was mansplaining at its dumbed-down finest.

For contrast, the previous speaker talked for the same amount of time about ethical issues with sex robots and managed to encompass neoliberalism, poststructuralism, humanism, attachment theory, Aristotelian ethics and Andrea Dworkin, while recounting her own journey from ethnographer in a robotics lab to feminism.

Then NSPCC blokey comes on and says 'hey I'm an anthropologist too and harmful sexual behaviour in children is a spectrum, so try not to clutch your pearls ladies, mkay?'

Past thread on queer theory and where it echoes the NSPCC changes in definition of CSA here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3607564-Dr-Em-The-Trojan-Unicorn-Queer-Theory-and-Paedophilia

I have really tried but all I can get from queer theory is....random whatever people feel like theory.

That's because it's written to be confusing. Most people throwing their hands up and going "I can't be arsed reading the rest of this" is baked into how postmodernist texts are written. I think the people writing that way think it makes them look clever, and unfortunately people often believe them.

Prodigal Yes, I'm slowly learning this

I previously thought I had become really thick over the last few years but then I realised it doesn't make sense. I often get confused when posters reference things on this board and have learned not to ask questions because then people think I'm on a troll.

so my original feeling was that all the queer theory and gender shite was not designed to make sense...and then I thought I was stupid....and now I think the whole point of it is to disrupt, and sit back laughing at the effects.

Pretty much, yep. "Making jazz hands at oppression" is how I like to think of it. They seem to think that this will bring about dramatic and necessary social change via some mechanism that's never explained.