Chuggers-R-Us – the NSPCC and Daniel Pelka.
You see them everywhere, representatives of the NSPCC. You hear them on the adverts during afternoon TV; they are on the breakfast sofa’s opining on the latest ‘terrible outrage’; they are in the side bar advertisements in your newspaper; and for sure you will have met some in your local High Street. Heavens! One of them even lived directly underneath Jimmy Savile’s apartment in Scarborough.
But have you noticed something? Every time you’ve seen one they’ve either been holding their hand out telling you that ‘but for your £2 a week’ some poor child would likely be dead by now, or ‘how disgusted they are’ that ‘x’, ‘y’ or ‘z’ received what was in their opinion was a derisory prison sentence for child abuse.
The NSPCC are superb fund raisers, exceptionally well organised. They work closely to the formula devised by the doyen of charitable fund raising, Marion Alford. A veritable army of supervisors and volunteers fan out across the country with military precision and tactics. They have analysed every step of the process, from suitable ‘rewards’ for different levels of donation to the necessity of inveigling large private donations before a campaign even starts in order that press releases can go out within a few days expressing surprise ‘at the large amount already donated’.
The NSPCC adopted this strategy on an ongoing basis. It has a basic triad of topics that have to be constantly re-presented to capture media interest and successful fundraising. Physical abuse (now with domestic violence) – sexual abuse (now with street grooming) – and neglect (this – the largest category of need has always been the Cinderella of fundraising because it involves the poor and the feckless and generally lacks salacious intensity, though the very rare Munchhauson’s Syndrome by Proxy and ‘emotional abuse’ were vamped up to compensate).
In order to pursue their fundraising aims the NSPCC need victims. Of course these are two a penny but you need a special type of victim to generate success with these being promoted as being ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The iceberg comprises the thousands of young children ‘trapped in silence’ who are to be presumed, but are necessary to generate the emotive appeal for funds. The public victims are ‘adult survivors’ of gross hidden ‘scandals’ whose stories are circulated in the media.
Their last big fund raising initiative – the Full Stop campaign – raised a stomping £250 million, but what did they do with it? Of course fund raising on this scale, using the professional services of companies such as MAA is an expensive business, and then there are the headline grabbing celebrities to be recompensed for their time. There are the advertising companies to be paid, and public relations specialists, even the humble social media experts pushing out their message on Twitter. Only the occasional can-rattler is genuinely a volunteer – and then not always.
Their skill at public relations has been honed by the best and most expensive advice over the years into an art form.
But where is the child protection? You’ve seen all the people above, heard them, witnessed their hard work, but tell me – when did you last see an NSPCC Inspector? You know where to send your donation – but do you know who to call if you come across a child in danger? Where do these elusive child protection workers hang out? What is their phone number? My guess is that you’d probably call the local Social Services outfit or the police. Which begs the question – what is the NSPCC actually doing with your money?
Which child has been protected with your £2 a week? We hear about the children that have been failed – the NSPCC bag a seat on the breakfast sofas faster than a German with a beach towel – ever ready to criticise social services. We hear what they think of derisory prison sentences. We know which head they think should roll. They are quite capable of using suitably anonymised children to plead for more money – where are the suitably anonymised children who have been ‘saved’?
The current pre-occupation with punishing child abusers – and it is in full spate this morning following the sentencing of Daniel Pelka’s parents for his murder – ignores the bariatricly challenged elephant in the room. In order to punish a perpetrator, first a child must be abused. The entire emphasis is on shutting the stable door and pouring opprobrium on the departing horses head. That may please the mob – and if they are lucky they will claim the scalp of a Director of Social Services, yet again, no doubt to be followed by an expensive claim for unfair dismissal – but somewhere, in Britain, another child is raiding the dustbin. Who is there for them? Where were the NSPCC inspectors when Daniel’s teachers were looking for advice on his bruises?
We are told that it was hard for the Polish speaking Daniel to tell teachers of his hunger. What a curious country we are! We can send out gas bills in Welsh perchance someone prefers to read it that way, we can provide on line translators to tell a Swahili mother to ‘push’ in the last irresistible stages of labour – yet a little Polish boy has no one to help him mouth the words ‘I’m starving’?
Take another look at that picture of Daniel. That is not the wan pathetic face of Baby ‘P’. That is a picture of a little boy that could have graced any press release telling of the success of nursery education. Smartly dressed, clean and well fed, enjoying his game with Playdo. Yet within months, something happened. That little boy turned into a skeletal figure weighing the same as a one year old child. His school clothes were ‘hanging off him’. His arm was broken. His face was bruised. The description is a dramatic difference from that picture – and people did notice the difference…
Social Services will no doubt plead ‘government cuts’, staff shortages – and they are probably right. They are the people who actually do the work. They are woefully short of man power. The £250 million war chest of the NSPCC would pay a lot of wages. Wages for men and women who would fan out across the country, not to beg for donations on commission – but to be a constant presence that can be talked to when a child deteriorates like that. Someone teachers, neighbours – and the child – know well; trust and like; a familiar face. Not a voice at the end of a helpline.
We can take the money off pensioners to pay for banking losses; why can’t we take the £250 million off the NSPCC to pay for child protectors? That, after all, is what it was donated for.
I am sick to death of hearing ‘who should be held accountable’. Sick to death of public inquiries and ‘lessons learned’. Sick to death of hearing of abusers who should be ‘shafted in the prison showers’. Sick to death of the moral posturing of ‘almost qualified’ criminologists and would-be tv celebrities. Sick to death of awards for exposing hands on bums 40 years ago. Sick to death of hearing of the millions being set aside to compensate middle aged women who snatched a kiss from a long dead celebrity.
I want to see all that energy, all those millions, channelled into providing a friendly face always on call to befriend a lonely little Polish boy who hasn’t eaten for days – before he becomes a statistic. It’s not rocket science. It’s child protection.
August 3, 2013 at 11:06
-
It is now almost 18 years ago since our family was subject to a child
protection investigation when #2 daughter broke her leg at age 3. In 1995
there were no cries of underfunding.
The local social services tried to simply keep the little girl in hospital
and did absolutely nothing until we, the parents contacted them. They told us
that what was happening was not a child protection investigation, but a
separate process which was separate from and preliminary to a child protection
investigation. Darling Wife and I have a complementarian marriage and when DW
called me from the social workers’ office, when the SS realised that if they
did not do something pdq then they were going to be on the receiving end of a
lawsuit, the comments that were recorded by the social worker were derogatory
toward the model of marriage that we had freely chosen to adopt.
Needless to say we complained and were given, with no choice on our part a
officious twit from another fake charity, “The Voice of The Child in Care” to
look after our daughter’s interest. The complaint investigation was even more
of a whitewash than the Hutton report into Dr. David Kelly’s death. We looked
to escalate, and this pompous buffoon who was supposed to represent our
daughter wrote to us and told us that we werfe only prolonging the agony and
we should let the matter drop. At the co0mlaint review meeting, the chairman
of the meeting said that he was not prepared to find that the investigation
into our complaint had been handled shoddily, before we even started to hear
the evidence.
The later cases all have the same characteristics as our case. Social
workers did nothing. The problem was caused by gaps in state institutions
authorities to do this or that. After a hoo hah, someone descends from some
ivory tower to say “We’ve looked at this and lessons will be learned”, but
nothing changes.
The system for child protection in this country is so bad, and seems to
have been bad for such a long time that i have come to the conclusion that all
the child protection charities, police on full time child protection, and
social workers should be sacked and child protection handed over to vigilante
justice. I think that more children would be rescued from appalling situations
and fewer children would be killed, inured or neglected.
-
August 3, 2013 at 08:21
-
A few years ago there was an ingenious fraud when someone working for the
NSPCC opened a bank account in the name “N. Speed” and doctored cheques to the
tune of 800,000 quid.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nspcc-cash-chief-stole-pounds-838408-1410989.html
- August 3, 2013 at 11:08
-
And there was the Cumbernauld postman, IIRC, who opened a bank account in
the name of an italian immigrant called Inlandi Revenuti.
-
August 6, 2013 at 17:04
-
It was in Ireland where the payments are made to the Collector General.
Someone opened an account in the name of his fictional italian au pair
girl, Collectora Generali. *Takes pedant’s hat off*
- August 6, 2013 at
17:25
-
The things I learn every day!
I did know someone who had a bank account in the name of Hollie de
Funde.
-
August 7, 2013 at 11:29
-
It’s slightly more difficult these days what with having to prove
you’re not a fundraiser for Al Quaida. The last time I transferred
money abroad I was asked the source of the funds to which the answer
was *I earned it*.
-
August 3, 2013 at 00:12
-
There is a good deal we are not being told here, specifically in regard to
the mysterious ‘sibling’. Why cannot it’s sex, name, or precise relationship
to the parents be mentioned? What sort of parents single out one child for
abuse but (apparently) treat the other well? Is Cinderella involved in some
way?
Was Daniel being ‘punished’ for certain (unspecified and unknown) ‘sins’ of
omission (or comission) visited upon him as the offspring of his absent
father; a father incidentally, who in his TV interviews seems about as
convincing a loving, caring parent as Dr Crippen! This is sheer speculation on
my part, but one wonders, one does wonder, as Gollum was want to say.
- August 2, 2013 at 17:57
-
@Jonathan Mason
If they were “pure evil” why was the older sibling not
starved and tortured as well?
“The court was told how the sibling would often ask for extra food to give
to Daniel. “I had my money I got from the bank. I found a card on the floor. I
used to go to a shop with my brother and used to buy things for him that
[Luczak] couldn’t see,” the child said. “I had to make food for him, I had to
clean him up.” The sibling, who cannot be identified, also told the court
about Daniel being held under the water in a bath at the family home.
“[Krezolek] bashed Daniel’s head against the bath. He pushed him. “[Luczak]
was holding him under water. [Krezolek] told me not to tell anybody. Daniel
cried. They didn’t do anything,” the child added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-23224826
-
August 2, 2013 at 23:30
-
It is more evil to treat one child well and torture the other, because it
shows they knew the difference.
- August 3, 2013 at 00:11
-
So if they had killed them both, they would have been less evil?
Doesn’t work does it. I’ve no idea if the other child was treated *well*,
but he or she does seem to have been accepted. They must have had a
different father again to Daniel’s. Daniel’s father is said to have gone
back to Poland after the woman had an affair with someone else – I’m
guessing with this ex-soldier who then took against Daniel.
The sibling’s story is most sad,
“The child said: “When (Krezolek)
was too much drinking, my brother had a cold bath and I asked (Krezolek)
to stop it. “I got my brother from the bath and I pulled the plug out and
I hugged him.” Asked to give further details, the witness explained: “I
was downstairs, I heard him screaming. I came upstairs and asked
(Krezolek) to stop it, and he stopped it. “I got my brother from the bath
and put a towel on him and hugged him.” Asked what the witness thought
about what had happened, the child said: “I thought I needed to be brave
to help my brother.” Describing another incident when Daniel was hurt by
Krezolek, the witness said: “I was again brave and I pushed (Krezolek) to
stop it and he stopped it. “Then I checked my brother and I checked if he
had got any marks and I saw loads (of) marks on him and I keep him safe.
“(Krezolek) didn’t bother to look after him properly, he didn’t even give
him food or clean him.” On another occasion the witness recalled: “I came
back home, my brother was screaming. “(Krezolek) was hitting him on his
arms lots of times. I stopped him by kicking his legs. He said he hates
me.” The court was told that before he died Daniel ended up sleeping in
the same room as the witness. “I said I want him in my bedroom,” the
sibling said. Asked why, the child responded: “Because I love him. I don’t
want him to be hurt by (Krezolek) and (Luczak).” Describing a spare room
at the house, the witness said: “It smelled disgusting and I wanted my
brother to sleep with me. “We had cuddles at night time, that’s why I want
him back.”…. “He (Krezolek) didn’t bother to look after him properly. He
didn’t even give him food or clean him. He didn’t let him go to the
toilet. “(Luczak) would ask how many pieces of toast I wanted. I would say
two and go upstairs really quietly and give it to him. He was not allowed
to come downstairs.”
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/daniel-pelka-murder-trial-how-4866501
Doesn’t sound as if all those NSPCC helplines were much use either as
this sibling sounds like they must be about 10, so quite capable of using
a telephone presumably.
-
August 2, 2013 at 14:32
-
The medical evidence in the case, the judge said, showed that Daniel’s
emaciation was regarded by experts as ‘unprecedented’ in Britain.
The judge continued: ‘They likened his appearance to those who failed to
survive concentration camps, and that comparison was not made lightly.
‘As the months passed, Daniel increasingly scavenged for food, from other
children’s lunch boxes, from the playground or from rubbish bins.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383275/BREAKING-NEWS-Mother-lover-jailed-minimum-30-years-murdering-boy-campaign-callous-wretched-cruelty.html#ixzz2aolxUsD4
Follow
us: @MailOnline on Twitter DailyMail on Facebook
However not sufficient to have him taken into care, it seems. Wow, these
folks seem like they are right up there with Brady and Hindley in the annals
of crime. It appears they concocted a story that the child had a hereditary
disease that made him always hungry, while deliberately starving him to death.
Wow!
The trouble is that the “system” just isn’t geared to deal with people who
are pure evil.
-
August 2, 2013 at 14:10
-
Please forgive me, Miss Raccoon, if I repeat points made elsewhere on your
blog, but I have only recently come across it.
Personally, I find it astonishing that the NSPCC has had nothing to say in
what is the most obvious child abuse scandal of our times, Muslim –
unfortunately – paedophile gangs.
The problem of these gangs was first brought to public attention by Nick
Griffin of the BNP in 2001, who was put on trial for ‘inciting racial hatred’
in 2004. Whatever one thinks of Griffin and his organisation, he hit the nail
on the head, and matters have come to a pretty pass when Nick Griffin has more
credibility on this issue than the NSPCC.
In 2004, Channel 4 broadcast a documentary, ‘Edge of the City’, about
grooming in Bradford by ‘scores’ of Asian men targeting white girls. One girl
was 11 years-old, another had had 100 sexual partners. Unfortunately, the
documentary itself is not on the Channel 4 website (surprise, surprise), but
there are links which discuss the programme:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1462413/Race-fears-halt-film-on-Asian-sex-grooming.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3602854.stm
Perhaps most depressing of all is this clip from YouTube, which appears to
me to be an interview on ‘Women’s Hour’ from the same year. The producer of
the documentary begins by making clear that all the Bradford social workers
dealing with young girls are aware of the issue and that the problem is
extensive. She later contradicts herself by stating that the problem is more
limited. The position of the other interviewee is that the programme has been
sensationalised, the people involved are criminals, and this is only one part
of their criminality – move along, nothing to see here. Both downplay the
nature and extent of the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V8Shznb4_eQ#!
Here, similarly, is a newspaper report from 2006, reporting on a BBC
programme, concerning grooming:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-402481/
Skipping forward to the present, evidence from the Oxford trial showed that
Police and social workers were aware of the abuse since 2005, and one mother
had complained to social services ‘hundreds of times’. In the Rochdale case,
the girls were dismissed as having made ‘lifestyle choices’.
Just today, there are two reports in the newspapers about another
paedophile gang in Coventry – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383192/ – and a blog
post about, inter alia, Charlene Downes, the alleged victim of such a gang,
who was apparently killed and cannibalised – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100229154/
It seems to me to be beyond belief that a national charity dedicated to
protecting children would have been unaware of such cases. The NSPCC – and the
whole lot of them, to be fair, from Thames Valley Police Chief Constable Sara
Thornton (appointed 2007, finally closed the Oxford gang down in 2013 – hey,
don’t rush yourself!), local Social Services Departments, and so on – have
completely failed. There ought to be a special circle of Hell reserved for
such incompetence and willful blindness; the failure of these alleged experts
and professionals to halt the activities of these gangs has prolonged the
suffering of the children involved.
- August 2, 2013 at 13:08
-
Nail on head – again, Anna! Just watched a person from NSPCC interviewed on
BBC news channel. He blamed everybody associated with the case and not once
did the interviewer ask him why his organisation did not pick up on the
appalling goings on. Classic BBC, typical NSPCC. Keep up the good work
Anna.
- August 2, 2013 at 10:40
-
The NSPCC is not a perfect organisation, nor is it a fraud or a component
of some new world order social engineering project or many of the grounded and
rational accusations above suggest.
This article is full of speculative, inaccurate an rhetorical nonsense.
Anyone who actually knew much at all about the NSPCC outside of a clear agenda
against the charity would know them as such. I’m not wasting my morning
spelling them out but I’ll give you a couple. They don’t currently “chugg” and
that’s just the title. They don’t have inspectors because they now work with
the social services and if required the police instead so things a re rightly
more joined up. I’d have to charge my time to cover them all.
In terms of turnover, staff costs etc, why should people not be paid for
helping children for a living? Is it cause that should be taken up in the odd
free evening and weekend? The article shamefully ignores the fact that
fund-raising is just one of the many elements required to run the organisation
and ignores the many frontline services and campaigning.
I’ll leave you with this, a note to our wonderful author and author of the
laughable defence of Stuart Hall’s defence lawyer and that farce of a process
(cos 15 months was real justice for sexually assaulting a series of children
right?) is it more or an injustice to earn money protecting children than it
is to earn money keeping sexual criminals out of prison and closer to your
kids?
- August 2, 2013 at 10:56
-
Well said Pons. Those bashing the NSPCC just want someone to blame
- August 2, 2013 at 11:23
-
@pons & mm
The Telegraph ran a press campaign about all this last year. “Tag”
apparently had made it’s owners millionaires. It’s all in the ‘papers. One
report mentioned that Marie Curie had a £400,000 contract with them. Care
to tell us what the NSPCC might have spent with thenm over “several years”
?
It has also emerged that the NSPCC has stopped using “chuggers” –
derived from the phrase “charity muggers” – after several years. It said
it had made the decision after Tag’s owners put another part of their
company, which the charity has previously used, into voluntary
receivership.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9367193/Charities-ditch-street-chuggers-after-Sunday-Telegraph-investigation.html
-
August 2, 2013 at 15:15
-
Pons, mm.
So what exactly do the near 2,000 staff at an average cost of £40k
p.a.do?
-
August 2, 2013 at 15:19
-
Pons, mm.
No, we only want to know what has been accomplished by the £250 million
donated by the general public other than paying the generous salaries of
nearly 2,000 staff at an average cost of £40k p.a.
- August 2, 2013 at 11:07
-
“…they now work with social services and if necessary the police…”
In other words, the NSPCC does not directly help children. It expects
others to do the hard, difficult, hands-on work. Why should donations from
my hard-earned go to people who administer, hold awareness seminars, and
then expect somebody else to do the difficult stuff?
I don’t think the NSPCC are the only charity to have fallen into this
trap. Many of the larger ones have. Sadly, many are now becoming political
fronts, which is also unacceptable – charity work should be apolitical.
I’d rather support charities that do still try to fulfil their original
aims of doing good where no other help exists, like small local ones, or the
likes of Mountain Rescue and the RNLI.
-
August 2, 2013 at 11:35
-
Nice answer Engineer – here’s what I do charity wise. If I see someone
who appears to be in need I help them even when they don’t ask for it. The
genuinely needy rarely ask for help, they are well aware of the fact that
it takes so long to get any darn help that they may as well not bother ! I
am constantly amazed at the narrowness of most peoples field of
vision.
- August 2, 2013 at 12:27
-
rabbitaway- it is those with the highest paid jobs and status to
protect that have the narrowest field of vision- otherwise they would
not be protecting their roles / careers.
With a lot of experience of working with charities and small
organisations personally I came to the conclusion, categorically, that I
would never now support a charity- especially those that work glove in
hand with government and institutions and have campains which are in
their own best interests because they sell ‘bias’ to maintain their
position. What goes on inside is another matter- the public do not know
the half of it.
Engineer and you are right, I have found small local groups run by
volunteer committees/ members who are very montivated to be often the
best- yet these are the ones who run on local donations or other local
community fundraising for support- they often do not chase growth or
grants for funding, unless told to do so by some ‘umbrella organisation’
funded by the council. It often means then they have less time for
frontline helping.
Somehow if we sought these more effective and helpful groups out we
might have more of an actual impact on some lives in our own areas. As
you note the really needy don’t bother to jump hurdles to get mere
‘crumbs’ when they are dying of hunger.
- August
2, 2013 at 14:19
-
@Edna – thanks for that – here’s a suggestion – WHEN the good folk
of Great Britain finally wake up to the fact that, not is all that it
seems on the Jimmy Savile front, then perhaps a special Trust could be
formed in his memory that would actively seek out these worthy
beneficiaries. The only time a ‘big’ charity sees any of my dosh is
from my charity shop purchases. After their part in Yewtree, the NSPCC
could close today for all I care.
- August 2, 2013 at 16:32
- August 2, 2013 at 10:34
-
Oh, and if you’re wondering where my son slept with all those tenants in
such a small house? He slept on the floor by his mothers bed. I know, as she
quite happily admitted to the Social Worker that this was the case (and that
her ‘relations’ continued unabated whatever he thought). The fact that he only
had a bed because I had bought him one (whilst mum spent all her money on
alcohol) was apparently irrelevant, I was instructed by Childrens Services to
‘pay more’?!?
Oh, and ‘being investigated’ by Childrens Services (as a nurse) really did
wonders for my career – female dominated career path and profession, ‘no smoke
without fire’, ‘what do you mean we don’t know what the investigation is
about’ ‘we’ll jump to wrong conclusions, believe what we want, and crucify
you’ – needless to say I am no longer (after 20 years) a nurse. Neither have I
seen my son for the last two years, oh three court orders to do so, but … no
one to enforce them, and threats to stay away from her house in case she
accuses me of causing a scene for asking to see him (I would have course been
arrested) – wonderful!
- August 2, 2013 at 10:23
-
When the facts are examined I’d guess that the teachers, social workers and
paediatrician ‘will’ have raised questions about the childs condition, but it
will have been explained away by ‘the mother’ – and everyone knows women never
lie!
I have some experience of this, unfortunately. My ex, a foreign national,
an alcoholic with both criminal and psychiatric history, was (of course) given
custody, housing, benefits (and a pass for ‘stealing’ >£30000 from me). She
rented out rooms in her housing association property (3 bedroom) to two
couples (of foreign friends). One of the males (her best friends husband whop
she was ‘having relations’ with whilst her friend was in hospital for
treatment) was (even according to all the authorities) acting inappropriately
and violently towards my son (then 4 yrs old). I reported concerns repeatedly,
his teacher reported concerns repeatedly – guess what? Childrens Services
eventually went to chat to her, asked my son in front of his abuser if ‘has
this man hurt you’, then …. investigated me and the one teacher who actually
did her job, accusing both (neither of whom knew about the other) of acting
maliciously!
I, coincidentally, did manage to find a phone number and called the NSPCC
for help and advice, result – ‘not our problem , Childrens Services will deal
with it’ and ‘it can’t be true as mother says it isn’t’.
We can raise issue with pressure and manpower (are there actually any men
in Childrens Services?), race, religion, etc., but the fact remains, only in
instances where a woman is involved, supports and excuses the actions of abuse
(ie. most of them) do all the authorities back-pedal and ‘fail’. The ‘women
never lie’ and ‘women only do wrong when pressured by a man’ memes are what
cause these tragedies.
- August 2, 2013 at 09:50
-
Oh!!! Chuggers!!
Not Cheggers………..
Phew, for a moment there I thought
Keith Chegwin had died and the NSPCC were mounting a brand-new memory-rape
campaign.
As to the terrifying story of the little Polish boy, looking at his picture
from three months before, he looks fine, so it is evident that the parents
then became completely insane. I wonder if anyone has the faintest idea
why.
http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2013/08/01/news-Daniel-Pelka-parents-found-guilty-of-murder-79596.html
I
was watching a wildlife programme where a female tiger had had cubs and a new
male had taken over the territory. She had to fight tooth and claw to keep the
new male from finding the cubs because apparently his instinct would be to
kill them. It is often said that the veneer of human civilisation was
wafer-thin. It seems that the hold of rationality over the behaviour of the
human animal is equally as fragile.
- August 1, 2013 at 21:48
-
Children do PE at school and so I would have thought that the teacher would
have seen the marks on the child. The dear boy must have been tired and
inattentive. He must have been pale even ashen and probably withdrawn. A
teacher would hardly need radar to spot the signs that something was terribly
wrong with this child. When my late sister was teaching infants she told me
that PE was the perfect time to notice any abnormalities of diet or bruising
to the body. Just quietly watching as the little ones put on their gym shoes
etc. I think if I had been a teacher I would have circumnavigated social
services and the NSPCC and contacted the police myself if a child under my
care each day showed signs of starvation and or cruelty. To hell with the
consequences or my job I would have been more concerned for the child. There
have been plenty of cases where children have been cruelly treated and
subsequently died under the very noses of those who should be protecting them
because they have been left in the care of a wicked parent. This little boy is
not the first and won’t be the last to suffer because no one had the
compassion to protect him.
- August 1, 2013 at 20:44
-
Our neighbour started a degree in social work at Bath uni. She did a year
then deferred her second year. She found a job as a fund raiser for a charity
and quit her degree. Of 12 students enrolled at the start of the course, 8
dropped out when they found a job doing something else. There won’t be any
social workers to blame soon. They will all be raising funds for lobbying the
government and running youth clubs.
-
August 1, 2013 at 23:11
-
On the plus side….at least they have jobs. Not bad for one year of a
degree when they could easily have done three years and been unemployed.
- August 2, 2013 at 20:59
-
You are right WOAR. Did I mention that my neighbour is from Eastern
Europe?
-
August 2, 2013 at 00:58
-
He said, “Behold what man has done
There’s not a world for
anyone
Nobody laughs, nobody cries
World’s at an end, everyone has
died”
Forever amen, amen, amen
Amen
- August 5, 2013 at 19:21
-
She should have skipped year wasted on education, set herself up as a
“leading child protection expert” and lied about qualifications, awarded
herself a fictitious Masters degree or doctorate.. That’s what everyone else
does, naming no names of course
If the child protection thing wasn’t working out she could have tried her
hand at being a “leading criminologist”
- August 1, 2013 at 19:10
-
Rule number one of the 21st century, never, never, ever give money to the
charity industry…
-
August 2, 2013 at 03:28
-
In a sense, you can say it goes back to the 19th Century, and Andrew
Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth.
Andrew Carnegie, though a non-churched man, still felt the effect of the
Presbyterian preaching he heard as a young boy in Dunfermline, and when his
family picked up and moved to Pittsburgh, and he stopped attending, it
didn’t stop the almost-religious feeling he had that he needed to help
others less fortunate– he was the beneficiary of help from relatives and
members of the Scots immigrant community to help makes ends meet when his
father was out of work and he thought it had to be paid forward.
Andrew’s problem was that, owing to his personal circumstances as a
teenager– having to work to make a few dollars for the family, though not
enough for them to live on, whilst Dad remained home, due to increasing
fecklessness and a depressive nature– he thought handouts were anathema as
any sort of long-term answer. Owing to his perspicacity in working his way
up through the ranks of the Pennsylvania RR, making use of information he
had about companies who were the RR’s customers to engage in stock dealings,
and knowing information about his competitors and where he could sell them
short, Carnegie became a railroad tycoon, who set up a company to build
bridges for his and other railroads, which got him into the steel business,
and– well, you know what happened then. Now he could afford to be Lord
Bountiful, and set up charitable works that weren’t merely tiding-over
handouts.
So he carried over the same ideas into philanthropy that he had in
business– bigger is better– always try to obtain as much information on your
market as possible– cut out the competition and try to co-ordinate efforts.
Having found that illiteracy held back many workers from ever advancing– men
he would have liked in higher positions in his business who couldn’t read
and write well enough to do the paperwork– Carnegie built public libraries;
nobody else was, so he dragooned other super-rich to do so as well, and told
them (as was true in his case, actually) that children, if encouraged to
develop the reading habit at a young age, never lose it, and were at a
distinct advantage to their parents. It couldn’t hurt society if more
children read, and this might light a fire under their parents to improve
their skills as well. If, at the end of it all, some good redounded to Andy
himself, well and fine, but most of his libraries weren’t in Pittsburgh or
near Skibo Castle.
Set up institutions– do big pushes– keep it all moving. Get the job
done.
But just as in Big Government, Big Charity soon becomes a big employer of
people who do plenty of managing and administrating, and damned little
frontline work, and rather than being a means, they now become the end in
themselves. You almost wonder what sort of ethos is at work here– oughtn’t
they to work to try to put themselves out of business eventually? Does
anyone really think they ARE doing that? Hey, more power to their elbow if
they are– prove me wrong; I’m very willing to be dead wrong on this one.
- August 1, 2013 at 18:34
-
It is interesting to compare the accounts of the RSPCA with those of the
NSPCC. They have roughly the same turnover and fund-raising costs, and roughly
the same proportion on ”charitable activities’, but whereas the NSPCC includes
a high proportion of lobbying and promotion in this, the RSPCA seems to spend
it on front-line services and account for the promotion elsewhere.
-
August 1, 2013 at 21:32
-
Although the RSPCA does seem rather fond of giving huge sums to m’learned
friends in pursuit of fatuous court cases.
There is no major ‘charity’
without obvious sins in its operations – better not to give to any of them,
it only encourages them in their wasteful conduct. Do your charity locally,
where you can see what it achieves.
- August
2, 2013 at 05:53
-
And give time or material goods (perishables). Not money!
- August 1,
2013 at 18:18
-
“They are woefully short of man power.”
Are they? Well, so they tell us.
- August 1, 2013 at 18:17
-
It’s very difficult to think objectively about the charitable sector when
confronted with horror stories from real life that we think might have been
prevented if only they….
It also doesn’t help when we are bombarded daily
with junk mail and ads trying to keep the money flowing, and I really don’t
want any more track suited and persistent charity pests bouncing up and down
on my doorstep with their word perfect pitch.
We can look at The Charities
Commission files to see the big picture, pounds in pounds out and purpose, but
it tells us nothing about the need for the charity’s existence or the
effectiveness in meeting that need.
But, there is also the other side of
the argument; charities are there to do what they choose to, not necessarily
what we might think they should do, nor how. They are not there to enable
local authorities to tick boxes.
I suppose there may be little need for a
horse trough charity, but if enough people are willing to subscribe and make
it happen, why not? It’s their money.
I make this point after 20 years as a
volunteer with a local charity. It doesn’t operate as effectively as a
business, but we’re all volunteers and it works. Others in the community
sometimes think we should do what they want doing; they see a resource and
would like some of it. Offered significant support which still requires them
to contribute effort themselves, and they’re not interested. We do what we do,
there’s a need for it, but as a volunteer I find it unacceptable when the
uninvolved think they have right to my help on their terms.
But the big
charities are a different problem, maybe it’s time to review the whole issue
of charitable status with large organisations?
-
August 1, 2013 at 18:12
-
Okay. I have thought of something to say.
I do not countenance Prison
Justice. I do not understand why some vile criminal thinks they have a right
to dish out rough justice to some other vile criminal.
But I am perfectly
at ease with these two spending the rest of their time in prison scared out of
their wits about the possibility of some other vile criminal beating them half
to death, although I hope this doesn’t actually happen.
There was a vaguely
similar case in France not all that long ago, and two Social Workers and a
Doctor received Prison Sentences. I would like to see a bit more of that.
Many, many years ago my family was visited by an NSPCC Inspector who
questioned my sister and me in front of our abuser, and then left, completely
oblivious to what was going on. He thought that the neighbours were being
interfering busybodies. Our stepmother eventually nearly killed my sister in a
fit of rage. This did stop her short of physical violence for a while, but the
emotional abuse went on. And my sister and I lived for a long time in
perpetual fear from which neither of us have ever quite recovered. But at the
time we were both incapable of telling anyone.
But it is not an unusual
story, and no sympathy is required. We both went on to be relatively normal
people with nice children that we love very much, and of whom neither of us
have ever abused.
But you can stuff The NSPCC up your arse for me. Nothing
has changed.
That poor little boy breaks my heart. And you could not go
further from a sentimental fool than I am.
- August 1, 2013 at 17:53
-
Once upon a time charities were staffed by volunteers, and low paid staff,
who worked among the detritus of society, trying to physically help the
particular target of their charity, be that people or animals. It was nasty,
hard, poorly remunerated work, but people did it, mainly because they saw it
as a higher calling (often it has to be said of a religious nature, dare I say
it Christian). They considered every pound not spent directly on help their
stated aims was wasted, including their own wages.
Nowadays charities are primarily there as a source of middle class careers.
They don’t want to get their hands dirty. They want to sit in air conditioned
offices, and direct ‘campaigns’ and run ‘awareness workshops’. Nice easy 9-5
jobs that don’t involve spending time on drug and crime infested housing
estates trying to find out about abused kids, or tackling travellers about the
way they treat their animals. And the best thing is the poor and the abused
will always be with us, so you have a nice safe job for life. The last thing
you actually want to do is solve the problem your charity set out to help
with, you’d be out of a job (and a pension). Do the bare minimum of practical
assistance to show you’re ‘doing something’ and keep the money rolling in via
plenty of guilt inducing fund raising campaigns. Job done.
Charities are the ultimate example of producer capture. The basic rule of
thumb is that they will do what is necessary to ensure the continued existence
of the charity first, and only then possibly maybe attempt to do some good, as
a by product. But self preservation is rule number one.
- August 2, 2013 at 12:19
-
Yet another example of Pournelle’s Iron Law?
-
August 3, 2013 at 01:10
-
Indeed: one of the many.
- August 1, 2013 at 17:44
-
No, it’s worse than that.
The NSPCC do, as you imply, basically do f**k all in terms of anything
actually involving warm living breathing children. But they also make things
far worse for SSD and indirectly “the children”.
The NSPCC, Childline, the Savile cr*p and all the rest of it create
countless spurious reports for the Social Services to deal with. All this
rubbish in schools about ringing Childline because your parents don’t give you
what you want (so it seems) and so on.
This gives them an enormous number of false positives that have to be
processed. SSD people cannot, dare not, simply bin the stupid ones because
they know if they make a mistake they will get crucified even if it was a
reasonable mistake to make. These things are always addressed with the benefit
of hindsight (i.e. you are required to be psychic at the point where you had
to make a decision).
So the amount of actual time available to be spent on children who actually
need intervention is minimised, and SSD spend most of the time in CYA
paperwork.
-
August 1, 2013 at 16:47
-
I did once sign up to pay £2 per month to the NSPCC. They spent the money
bombarding me with mail shots asking me to increase my contribution.
- August 1, 2013
at 16:18
-
we can blame the authorities as much as we like…… we can call for all the
public inquires we like……. we can call for all this to never happen to another
child again….. we can call for the charities to do better ……..
on a previous post I was accused of being inhuman…. before I was accused of
being angry…… I am not inhuman but I am sure am angry…..
me ? …. I ‘d call for those two fookers who killed this boy to be the first
up against the wall.
Why oh why do we continue to tolerate this ??
- August 1, 2013 at 16:47
-
Well, in truth, we don’t tolerate it. However, nobody can do anything
about it if they don’t know about it. In this instance, one does wonder why
teachers didn’t notice, or if they did notice, why they didn’t ask for more
expert advice.
Sadly, we seem to have Social Services who will remove foster children if
the foster parents support the ‘wrong’ political party, but don’t protect
girls falling victim to abuse by gangs of men of Asian descent because they
decree that the girl is making a ‘lifestyle choice’. Somehow, we’ve managed
to get something out of proportion.
What’s the answer? Firstly, a return to appointing social workers with
experience of real life rather than youngsters with a Sociology degree and
no experience. A degree might stuff their heads with politically correct
attitudes, but it doesn’t, in general, confer any deeper understanding of
the vagiaries of the human condition. Secondly, stop expecting the
government to cure all ills. It can’t.
- August 1, 2013 at 15:58
-
A more detailed look at the notes to the 2012 accounts, remember the devil
is always in the detail, show that the charity spent over £75 million on staff
costs to 1,911 employees. This equates to a staggering average of over £39,400
per employee. OK I know this includes employers national insurance but that is
one hell of a high average.
The majority of this expenditure is concealed under the heading “services
for children”.
- August
2, 2013 at 07:30
-
And defined benefit pension contributions.
- August
1, 2013 at 14:55
-
I took a look at cost-effectiveness of charities in 2009 and the figures I
saw at that time showed that the British Red Cross spent 13.7% on fund-raising
as compared with 29.1% for the World Children’s Fund. The 2011/12 accounts for
the NSPCC show s the cost of fund-raising as 21.3% (plus 0.6% on governance
and 1.5% one-off costs to do with dilapidations and restructuring costs).
http://broadoakblog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/charitable-giving-is-it-cost-effective.html
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-the-nspcc/annual-report/annual-report-2012/annual-report-2012-pdf_wdf92210.pdf
(see pp. 15-16).
-
August 1, 2013 at 14:54
-
Frothing about NSPCC finances is easier than dealing with the real issue –
ie voters of both main parties tacit acceptance of the state adbdicating it’s
reponsibility for child welfare. We can’t afford to fund social services
properly but we can afford to invade Libya.
- August 1, 2013 at 15:11
-
Why should the state be responsible for child welfare? Is the welfare of
all children not the responsibility of parents, then teachers, then the rest
of us? The state’s only involvement should be when there are no parents or
other relatives to care for said children.
One reason that middle-aged men tend to be very wary of helping other
peoples’ children, in any way. is the distinct possibility in this day and
age of being accused of some sort of impropriety. It only takes one
malicious idiot to ring the police and report you for suspected grooming and
your life could be destroyed. Far safer to walk on by. How sad is that?
-
August 1, 2013 at 15:41
-
People need to remember that in most other countries of the world you
would not have social workers able to remove children (or vulnerable
elders) from their families so readily. Only if a criminal offence is
committed and you are found guilty would the state be compelled to
intervene.
The cost to the public purse is enormous for cases as in the UK where
social workers can remove on some theoretical basis of a possibility of
emotional harm at some undefined futuure date. There can never be enough
resources for this type of action. So we are seeing more and more failures
to protect- and even harm from the state system itself.
As Ian Jospephs from ‘Forced Adoption’ has said in the UK parents are
having children removed when they have not committed any crime. Yet Daniel
subject to criminal child neglect, (as with many other similar cases)
somehow don’t feature seriously in the protection system until it is too
late, then we have serious case reviews costing anything from £40-100K or
more, where no lessons are ever learnt because the same happens again a
little later. It makes me sick to see innocent families broken up yet the
abusing ones somehow managing to destroy the life of a tiny innocent
being. Do children deserve this system?
- August 1, 2013 at 14:18
-
When I was a child and you fell over complete strangers would take you in
and bathe your knee.
When I was a child the teacher knew everyone of her class of 42.
When I was a child and you missed school for a day the attendance officer
was knocking on the door the day after.
When I was a child it was normal for a mother to be married to your father
and for your mother to stay at home.
For the child of today strangers pass on the other side of the street and
your teacher in a class of 24 is buffered by an assistant who can change
daily.
For the child of today if you miss a day at school a letter might be sent
home bemoaning the failure to meet set attendance targets.
For the child of today your mother lives with her latest boyfriend who is
not your father and your father isn’t father to your siblings. In future, for
preference, one of your mothers will have carried an egg that wasn’t hers,
fertilised by sperm from a homosexual friend of your other mother.
We certainly hate children now.
-
August 1, 2013 at 14:32
-
I would agree the Britsh do seem to not be particularly keen on children
anymore, that was not the case in my childhood either- I knew no one who did
not have children then Now I know many people, including married couples who
have none and chose not to do so.
The people who have them now are the much better off or those on state
benefits mainly. It is to be noted that the decline in children being born
to indigenous British people is in decline, but those being born to people
whose parents orginate from outside the country is not in decline. As one
English lawyer I met who was a patron of a charity run by an ethnic group
where large families were rife noted ‘ their fecundity’ which makes up for
the indigenous population.
Perhaps too in the era where state interference in family life has become
a problem, not yet noticed by those coming from abroad to work / live here,
the British have subconciously reacted to social / economic changes more
than past generations where people were more cohesive .
- August 1,
2013 at 14:16
-
- August 1, 2013 at 19:08
-
+1
-
August 1, 2013 at 14:14
-
” Social Services will no doubt plead ‘government cuts’, staff shortages –
and they are probably right. They are the people who actually do the work.
They are woefully short of man power.”
I might agree but for the fact that the numerous instances of failures to
protect children show up problems whch are not accountable entirely by this
analysis. One issue is how they prioritise cases and review the priority of
cases. In poor Daniel’s case clearly with a poor level of investigation they
closed it down. Then there is ability and competence to investigate
meaningfully- the child grooming cases highlight lack of ability and some
social workers appear to recognise this :.
‘More training’ is the panacea. More intellegence and ability to proble and
make accurate observations and decisions might be a better place to
begin.
Anyone with more commonsense might do better than the ‘graduates
from the school of social work’ whose theortical teachings have limited value.
They know how to demonise and avoid challenge better than actually be
accurate.
The NSPCC and children’s charities have little to do with child protection-
they are insitutions where jobs and caeers are rife for rich pickings.
In the end it is the fault of individuals in social services because only
social workers/ services have a staatutory and legal basis on which they are
supposed to exercise skills of judgement in assessment and actions taken in
respect of individual cases. Perhaps the truth is those selected for serious
social work are just not the right people. Back covering and blaming other
agencies who do not have the same statutory responsibility for safeguarding is
not on. I particularly state this because The College of Social Work and
British Association of Social Work bang on that social workers are the experts
in safeguarding and should be given more powers and recognition for their
expertise in this. More powers to do harm by acts of omission or
commission?
-
August 1, 2013 at 13:59
-
As the NSPCC are clearly playing a major role in the puritanical re-shaping
of society, it is time the roles and influenced played by sinister political
figures was thoroughly examined.
- August 1, 2013 at 13:56
-
Am I cruel and heartless because I despise each and every “fake” charity
that assaults my ears and eyes on tv and radio and mugs me every time I go out
the door? No I’m not.
Once upon a time a certain christian doctor and
evangelist set up a home for the many homeless children he encountered. His
name was Thomas John Barnardo. That was in 1870. According to Wikipedia, at
the time of his death his homes were caring for 8500 children. That is some
legacy.
Fast forward to today. Number of care homes operated-
none.
Instead, their website says- “we run over 900 services in local
communities. Our work includes reaching and helping children who have been
sexually exploited, young people leaving the care system, children with a
parent in prison and families struggling to cope. We find loving adoptive
homes and foster placements for children in care. Last year we transformed the
lives of more than 200,000 of the UK’s most vulnerable children, young people
and their families. We helped many more by campaigning to change policy and
public opinion.”
So they run youth clubs and lobby government.
Take
Spurgeons, another charity set up by a Baptist preacher in 1857. In 1867 they
opened a home for fatherless boys. Girls were accepted ten years later. The
homes closed in 1979 and now, according to their website “In partnership with
local authorities, we support vulnerable children, their families and
communities in finding long-lasting solutions to the challenges that they
face. Just as importantly, we help vulnerable children to speak up about the
things they care about. We ensure that children’s voices are heard by those
who have the power to change lives.”
So- they run youth clubs and lobby
government
The NSPCC? According to Wikipedia “The NSPCC lobbies the
government on issues relating to child welfare, and creates campaigns for the
general public, with the intention of raising awareness of child protection
issues.”
Another fake charity that lobbies government.
I often get
mugged by WWF chuggers. So what do they do? According to wiki (again)
“WWF
works with a large number of different groups to achieve its goals, including
other NGOs, governments, business, investment banks, scientists, fishermen,
farmers and local communities. It also undertakes public campaigns to
influence decision makers, and seeks to educate people on how to live in a
more environmentally friendly manner.It urges people to donate funds to
protect the environment. The donors can also choose to receive gifts in
return…………….The organization works with governments as collaborator and
lobbyist.”
So I give them money and they lobby governments.
And don’t
get me started on Oxfam. A large retail chain that lobbies governments.
-
August 2, 2013 at 12:28
-
I’m astonished at your revelation that Barnardo’s now doesn’t run
children’s homes.
About 20 years ago, my father, on an entirely voluntary basis, raised a
very large amount of money for Barnardos to open a local children’s home. He
never received any thanks for the work, although I believe that a small
pottery model of a rustic villager’s house with a plastic plaque inscribed
‘Barnardo’s’ might have been his ‘free gift’, either for that or some other
contribution. Anyway, he was so disappointed at the lack of consideration
that they displayed that he transferred his affections to a small local
charity – the Kent Association for the Blind – who actually go to the
trouble of thanking him for his efforts.
The moral, as always, is to avoid the national, professional, charities –
who don’t need your help anyway – and seek out the local charities, who are
actually doing something useful.
- August 2, 2013 at 13:03
-
I would suggest there is a practical reason why none of these charities
DO anything any longer and was because they became liable to historical
claims of abuse, which would be vigorously pursued by the State’s police
at our expense. This blog will give you an idea of what they would be up
against.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-school-that-died-of-shame.html
Because the State would never prosecute itself, the only group able to
afford to “look after anyone” became “the State” and even they thenbegan
to struggle – hence they increasingly do it by proxy, via out-sourced
contracts. Thus if anything especially heinous comes to light the State
can still wriggle out from under………… and so the wheel turns. The old
charities know better than to take on any such out-sourced contracts.
-
August 1, 2013 at 13:43
-
“Yet within months, something happened. That little boy turned into a
skeletal figure weighing the same as a one year old child. His school clothes
were ‘hanging off him’. His arm was broken. His face was bruised. The
description is a dramatic difference from that picture – and people did notice
the difference…”
Surely teachers should be trained to recognize signs of a child being sick
or abused and the child should be referred to a school nurse for further
assessment. Weight loss is an obvious sign of something. What is the purpose
of having a non-English speaking child in the school at all if not even basic
communication is possible?
My four-year-old speaks Spanish as her main language, but if she was sent
to school in England she would have no difficulty in communicating that she
was hungry or sick or in pain even if she forgot every word of English she
knows. Of course that assumes that she was able to get the attention of an
adult. One wonders whether this child was autistic or something.
-
August 1, 2013 at 13:48
-
“We are told that it was hard for the Polish speaking Daniel to tell
teachers of his hunger.”
Are you sure he went to school? He was only 4. His weight at death was
21lbs, which is exactly what my 9 1/2 month old weighs. My 4-year-old is 42
lbs, double what Daniel weighed.
- August
1, 2013 at 18:20
-
We know he went to school. We have the CCTV.
- August 1, 2013 at 22:53
-
The Mirror has published the timeline. The child was fully in contact
with all the relevant adults including teachers, health workers, social
workers and even a paediatrician, who examined him approximately three
weeks before his death. They don’t seem to be short of people – just a
paralysis of decision making. Now why would that be when we know from
cases like Webster that social workers can dig their heels in?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/daniel-pelka-trial-timeline-events-2109556
Isn’t anybody going to name the other elephant? No teacher or social
worker wants to have a complaint of raaaaaycism against them, so faced
with Polish immigrants they dismissed their fears. We’ve seen it before,
notably with Victoria Climbie and with Baby P. In the case of Baby P
this is not immediately apparent, until you hear the interview with
Tracey Connelly’s own mother and note that Tracey was married at age 16
to a much older man.
-
August 1, 2013 at 13:02
-
I haven’t got anything useful to say. The whole thing is making me feel
ill, and desperately sad.
- August 1, 2013 at 12:40
-
Very well put. But do you know something about the NSPCC and Marion Alford
which is not in the public domain? MAA does not list the NSPCC on its
(extensive) page of clients, nor can I find (by quick Google) any connection
between the charity and this organisation. The MAA which gave an award to the
NSPCC is the Marketing Agencies Association, which is a rather different
organisation.
This doesn’t impact at all on your general point but one can’t help
wondering why you picked on MAA / Marion Alford in particular.
- August 1, 2013 at 12:37
-
Are you a child?
Do you need to talk? Call ChildLine on 0800 1111 or visit us online.
The
front page of the NSPCC website does have contact numbers http://www.nspcc.org.uk/
Get some help
NSPCC helpline
Worried about a child? 0808 800 5000
Don’t wait until you’re certain. Contact our trained helpline counsellors
for 24/7 help, advice and support.
Report a concern
Contact the helpline
in:
[Arabic]
[Bengali]
[Farsi]
[Gujarati]
[Hindi]
[Polish]
[Punjabi]
[Turkish]
[Urdu]
[Welsh]
- August 1, 2013 at 14:09
-
Thanks Ian – you saved me the task of pointing out just how contactable
the NSPCC are for anyone who is worried about a child or children. It’s
entirely possible that if someone HAD contacted this helpline and the NSPCC
used their statutory powers to remove children from their parents, Daniel
Pelka might have been rescued.
- August 1, 2013 at 17:50
-
Or they might do what they did last time and forge documents to the
court to cover up their incompetence. As far as I can tell nothing came of
this.
- August 1, 2013 at 12:26
-
Don’t the NSPCC have to publish accounts? The proportion spent on
front-line protection should be revealed in these. With all their overheads,
I’d expect only 25% goes where it should.
Most charidees are using chuggers now – even door-to-door. Bloody annoying,
and on principle I will not give to them. The most recent doorstepper would
not stop – I said no donations; he said OK, but wanted to continue his spiel.
He was still yacking as the door closed.
- August 1, 2013 at 12:56
-
They do publish accounts – here :
- August 1, 2013 at 14:04
-
Thanks Ian
I’ve studied the accounts. The figures are:
£106.8 million (78.1% of
income) spent on, “Our work with children and young people”. Which sounds
commendable.
But it’s divided into:
£47.8 million – Services for
children.
£23.1 million – Childline
£27.6 million – Child protection
advice & awareness
£8.3 million – Child protection consultancy
So at least, £47.8 million out of £106.8 million (44.8%) is actually
being spent to help children (although what these “services” might be is
not disclosed). The rest, £59.0 million, plus the other £29.95 million
from their receipts, is dissipated on (at best) second level
support.
Would people give to this charity so readily if they knew only
45 pence in every pound goes to the front-line? I will not.
- August 1, 2013 at 14:08
-
Error! – it’s even worse – only 35pence per pound – I left out the
massive “overhead” figure of £29.95 million: (47.8/136.75 = 0.35)
- August 1,
2013 at 12:25
-
and the money goes to expand the operation which must be seen in parallel
with the Third Reich’s Gestapo units with charitable status, meaning they are
unaccountable and certainly not transparent.
- August 1, 2013 at 12:21
-
Well put, Anna.
- August 1, 2013 at 11:08
-
It was not always thus; in the 1960s a kindly uniformed NSPCC man – Mr
Scripps – would go around his patch in Wiltshire and get to know those
families who were struggling. There was a strong network of supporters, and
any number of coffee mornings. The rot probably set in with a £500,000 appeal
around 1968 to buy 1 Riding House Street as the NSPCC headquarters. The growth
of a corporate culture drained resources. My charity donations are now
channelled to volunteer organisations with minimal overheads.
- August 1, 2013 at 17:48
-
Yes, yes yes. My mother works for an entirely voluntary (I think)
organisation that supports women with breast cancer (she had this a few
years ago) and is now at a fairly high level. She’s never had a penny (they
would probably pay some ex’s but she wouldn’t accept).
Most of them are sh!te. They exist purely to exist and employ their
employees. They do nothing for the people they pupport to actually help.
-
August 2, 2013 at 11:34
-
Anna, once again you have cut through the cr*p and identified the
malaise, I believe that much of the woes of modern society are down to the
dreadful attitude which developed some 30-40 years age; namely that all
ills could be cured by appointing ‘professional managers’ over and above
those with fire in their souls and a firm belief in their convictions.
These ‘managers’ are in the whole, only interested in the organisation
itself and not in its aims or intentions.
I have posted this in several other threads of yours, but I believe
strongly that this whole charade was well summed up by Jerry Pournelle in
‘Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy’ –
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
organization there will be two kinds of people”:
First, there
will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples
are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of
the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some
agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective
farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the
organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the
education system, many professors of education, many teachers union
officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law
states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of
the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within
the organization.
We MUST find some way to repeal this law!
{ 80 comments }