It is because of the activities of the NSPCC and other similar organisations that the paedophile hysteria has taken such a hold, although the gutter press is equally culpable in fanning the flames. In spreading suspicion against men the NSPCC creates a climate which is destroying the social fabric of the nation. As a consequence most men now keep well clear of children so as to avoid the accusation that they are intent on 'abusing' them. Even the most innocent of contacts is seen as suspicious, which risks interpretation as an attempt to 'groom' a child for a sexual purpose.
The stated objective of the NSPCC is to stop all cruelty and 'abuse' against children. However, if this goal were to be achieved the NSPCC would no longer serve any purpose and the vast amount of money currently generated for it would dry up. To prevent this outcome the NSPCC devotes an inordinate amount of energy into conveying the message that children are continually at risk from 'abuse'. The more this fear is stoked up then the more society will conclude that it needs the NSPCC to combat this evil. Although not openly stated the implicit message is that men are the cause of this threat to children because potentially they could all be 'abusers'. To strengthen the message the definition of 'abuse' becomes ever wider.
In its attempt to highlight abuse the NSPCC has in the past promoted claims which have subsequently proved to be groundless. For example, in the early 1990s the NSPCC was responsible for the publication Satanic Indicators which gave rise to the 'satanic abuse' panic that caused some social workers, most notably in Rochdale and the Orkneys to take large number of children from their families. Recordings of the interviews made by NSPCC social workers revealed that flawed techniques and leading questions were used to gain 'evidence' of abuse from the children. The NSPCC are still heavily involved in the controversial recovered memory syndrome in which many women, after months of 'therapy', claim to have been abused in childhood. Virtually all of these claims are eventually proved to be baseless or exaggerated but in the meantime the lives of the accused, invariably men, have been destroyed. The most high profile activity recently promoted by the NSPCC is the Full Stop campaign against child abuse, a definition which has become increasingly wide. This campaign is nothing more than a racket to mint money for the organisation which it does on a colossal scale. The income raised by this campaign is quite considerable, since £250 million was considered necessary to fund the initial stage of the programme. None of the gigantic sums raised actually helps any child, since the NSPCC has no control over what goes on in people’s homes. There is no way that it can enforce this objective, and in any case it undermines the rights of parents to disciple their children in the manner they consider most appropriate within the law. Needless to say the NSPCC wants the law changed to make smacking by parents a criminal offence. If such a law is ever introduced it will give children enormous power to blackmail parents, with the inevitable result that they will be even more indiciplined than they are currently.
As part of the Full Stop campaign the NSPCC sent out nine million survey forms designed to 'educate people on things they may not know and (to) find out their attitudes towards abuse'. This is known in the trade as 'advocacy research', the main aim of which is not to elicit information about public opinion, but to trawl for support to reinforce an already agreed policy position. The survey questions are loaded to 'educate people' about the rightness of the NSPCC’s own mindset and priorities, namely the supposed massive incidence of child abuse which, it is suggested, is still occurring despite all the safeguards, warnings and campaigns on the matter. It also lumps together under the definition of child 'abuse', some of the more harrowing incidents of child cruelty, along with reasonable and necessary parental discipline such as shouting, smacking or criticising children. The letter accompanying the survey explains that 'we just want to know if our message is getting across'.
The implicit message here is that families are dangerous since they can harm children, and that it is only charities such as the NSPCC who can be trusted to provide protection. There is no evidence that such campaigns do anything very much to reduce the relatively infrequent incidents of genuine child cruelty, but they do manage to spread a poisonous message of mistrust that is conveyed in insulting slogans such as 'stop parents getting away with murder'. As such they undermine the family as the best means of bringing up children and insinuate that only child protection professionals can be trusted, not parents. Children are not best served by being brought up in such a climate of fear and suspicion. The continuing expansion of the child protection industry, with its modern alarmist orthodoxies and high public profile, is likely to further fuel the damaging obsession with child 'abuse'. Child protection workers risk overlooking serious cases of cruelty that warrant intervention, because of their preoccupation with rooting out generalised child 'abuse' that they have persuaded themselves is widespread amongst ordinary families. The best protection for children is when their parents are married. Needless to say the NSPCC has nothing to say on this believing that all parenting arrangements, including single motherhood, are equally valid.
Despite its high ideals the NSPCC does very little to protect children from what most concerns them which is bullying and family breakdown. It has become a money making machine creating fear amongst children that men are all predatory child molesters, and implicitly maligning men as potential paedophiles. Its advertisements and begging letters show a wholly distorted image of child/adult relationships and are often nauseatingly offensive. This is one 'charity' we can all do without.