Leaving aside the dodgy statistics which the NSPCC - and their Chief Exec in particular - trot out on a daily basis, in this recent article in the Guardian it seems that they've made the clear case for themselves that they no longer need statutory powers.
When I was a team manager in a busy office in a notoriously "difficult" town I found the NSPCC thoroughly irritating and no help whaysoever - the reverse in fact. Sanctimonious, unrealistic, self righteous. I thought perhaps it was just our local representatives, but as i moved around the country I found it was much the same everywhere, with one or two exceptions ( a large seaside town in the North West comes to mind). Looks as though things haven't changed much. I agree about the dodgy statistics. The dodgy research methodology is bad too. You know the sort of thing - 10% of families in the child protection system have a large screen tv, therefore when you see a large screen tv in a house, keep an eye out for child protection issues. Add the large dog and a male who does weight training and apply for a care order....I only exaggerate a bit - I used to hear this sort of claptrap regularly on NSPCC courses.
Oh Snap, well thats my kids on a child protection plan. Got the TV, Dog and do the weights.. No one tell the NSPCC... Ive never been able to stand them much, you are so right when you say they get in the way with self righteousness.
and now they've employed a failed businessman...to head up their new shiny enterprise....what the **** does this man know about child protection....in his opening statement he appears to confuse efficiency with effectiveness....now I've not got a problem with efficiency....ie accounting for every penny spent...but effectiveness is about outcomes for children...and that is a task for social work practitioners and properly constituted research as they know what works and what doesn't and also what is possible within the organisational stuctures they inhabit. If the NSPCC continues on this road of sniping at those who actually do the work....not only will they damage their own credibility but it will be increasingly seen as biting the hand that feeds them.....Barnardo's appears hell bent on a similar strategy...and it's pissing people off
Beware their 'Chuggers' (Charity Muggers) in large towns / cities.
The NSPCC is a disgrace - sets up projects, often at Local Authority expense - and abandoms them when not cost-effective.
Despite doing no front-line Child Protection investigation work it carries out investigations into alleged abuse by professionals.
Employs staff to just keep major benefactors 'sweet.'
Appeals to the upper-class 'do gooders' - and enjoys receiving their 'morsels' from their plates of plenty.
Avoid the NSPCC at all costs - there are far more worthy Charities.
I may be wrong, a simple admission never in the NSPCC vocabulary mind, but I sort of remember that in the 1980's when bang to rights by of all papers the Sun over the failure of one of their staff to intervene in a case that lead to the death of a child, the case notes, those were the days, suddenly caught fire and could not be produced. They have made a remarkable recovery from those days through their corporate friends and their emotivelly bullying campaigning but maybe as a humble local authority social worker I am just envious of their immense authority and expertise.
topbananaandrew: When I was a team manager in a busy office in a notoriously "difficult" town I found the NSPCC thoroughly irritating and no help whaysoever - the reverse in fact. Sanctimonious, unrealistic, self righteous. I thought perhaps it was just our local representatives, but as i moved around the country I found it was much the same everywhere, with one or two exceptions ( a large seaside town in the North West comes to mind). Looks as though things haven't changed much. I agree about the dodgy statistics. The dodgy research methodology is bad too. You know the sort of thing - 10% of families in the child protection system have a large screen tv, therefore when you see a large screen tv in a house, keep an eye out for child protection issues. Add the large dog and a male who does weight training and apply for a care order....I only exaggerate a bit - I used to hear this sort of claptrap regularly on NSPCC courses.
Agree. Sanctimonious bunch of irrelevants.
How about doing less in terms of more honest adverts? Like 'if you call us, we'll just pass your concerns on to the local social services' rather than using big-eyed children to give the impression that the NSPCC actually does anything other than offer a few (and apparently growing fewer) services across the country and sell itself as the experts on child abuse?
I manage a duty team, we regularly get referrals from the NSPCC, the vast majority of which are too vague to do anything with - including one memorable set where it was clear that someone was using the NSPCC helpline to try and harass a neighbour they didn't like, as we'd investigated the first time around and then we got regular, fortnightly repeats - and then they have the nerve to ask for feedback in writing and not even include an SAE!
Well it makes sense. At the end of the day why go in smelly houses or deal with children who tell you where to go whren you can have nice lunches with politicians and still tell othyer people what to do and how to do it? I read the article and i cringed when I read that he said that to keep the donations rolling, they need to change to this useless approach - is this what they are really all about? Milking money out of well meaning people through misleading adverts, money that communities could have spent on a small neighbourhood facility that would have ACTUALLY made a difference to those children? And how cynical is that? to say oh no, we don't think that saving a few thousand children is worth the cause, we need to think of the billions and gazillions that we tell people at at high risk of sudden, immediate death if it were not for our policy and or badgering of the local and central government. They have always been annoying ,but at least here and there they did some good work, now they are turning into a huge, annoying fly that does not produce anything but a lot of noise. Just what vulnerable kids need!! And sorry, with a hundredth of that amount of money but with more freedom from the central government and some trust in frontline practitioners ANY local authority could set up inovative pilot projects to deliver better services.
Well said RP
Couldn't agree more with RP.
I agree too, with all that has been said. their adverts are abusive. and how DO they get the kids to cry?