Harry

Especially For Young Women

 
   

NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped

A protection racket is where one group of people causes you damage, and another group of people offers to protect you from such damage.

They usually work together; but this is normally hidden from your view.

Thousands of such groups can be found working together in the abuse industry.

NSPCC Mary Marsh
NSPCC Director

This woman - Mary Marsh -  has made millions of pounds for her cronies by stirring up hatred towards men and fathers and by claiming that she can protect children from them.

In fact, in the eyes of many, she and her organisation have done more damage to the nation's children than just about anything or anyone else in recent history.

22/08/04

NSPCC poster

NSPCC 

Demonising Men

The National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children in the UK spends millions of pounds every year manufacturing advertisements and propaganda which portray men and fathers as paedophiles and child abusers.

These portrayals are displayed all over the country - on TV, in the radio, in the newspapers and on posters.

The idea behind them is to induce the public and businesses to donate money to the NSPCC so that its staff can help to protect children from these allegedly-abusive men. Indeed, their campaigns have been so successful that the NSPCC rakes in about 100 million per year in donations. However, in my view, the NSPCC has done a great deal of damage to our society.

What follows demonstrates that the NSPCC has damaged everyone - including all our children.

A most important point to make at the outset is this.

The fact that someone might be trying to help someone else does not mean that they are not also causing great harm to others while doing so.

For example, perhaps some group of men could start a charity to protect children from divorce, and then spend millions of pounds annually demonising women who sought a divorce. Women seeking divorce could be portrayed as violent, manipulative, sexually-abusive, adulterous, selfish, child-hating, scheming, and goodness knows what else, in order to punch the message home.

And then when the various women's groups started complaining, the men's charity could simply turn around and say, "Well, we are only trying to save children from divorce. This is a good thing, isn't it?"

It is nonsense to argue that because someone is doing some good it must follow that they are not also doing bad elsewhere.

divorce has a far worse effect on children (both individually and in terms of sheer scale) than does, say, the antics of young people groping each other

In fact, we know that divorce has a far worse effect on children (both individually and in terms of sheer scale) than does, say, the antics of young people groping each other - which is what the vast majority of 'sex-abuse' actually is, judging by a close look at the statistics. And, as such, the NSPCC would protect far more children from 'abuse' by promoting marriage rather than by trying to inflame suspicion and hatred towards men through its various child abuse campaigns.

However, because it is not fashionable to promote marriage, and because it would also upset the feminists - who believe that marriage oppresses women - the NSPCC would not dare do such a thing.

But because it is both fashionable and acceptable, especially to feminists, to heap suspicion and hatred on to men in order to rake in donations, the NSPCC blithely does exactly this.

Indeed, in my view, the evidence strongly suggests that the NSPCC is doing, and has done, a great deal of damage to people, both socially and emotionally, and it has also seriously harmed the whole of the society in which they live.

And it has done this largely by demonising men.

For example, I remember the claim (made about 15 years ago) that up to 25% of fathers were sexually abusing their daughters. (And then the figure later rose to 1 in 3 - thanks to some 'research' in the USA.)

And I also remember some woman from the NSPCC claiming that fathers who tickled their children were often simply using tickling as an excuse to grope them sexually.

I also remember the NSPCC promoting the recovered memory nonsense

I also remember the NSPCC promoting the recovered memory nonsense which allowed people (women mostly) to claim - after months of 'therapy' - that they suddenly remembered being sexually abused as children 20, 30 or 40 years beforehand.

And they would be believed!

Thousands of fathers and mothers ended up being accused of sexually abusing their children, and in many cases the claims involved the most fantastic and unbelievable of stories. Many were prosecuted and nearly all were subjected to months or years of fanatical inquisitorial investigations by malicious, deluded social workers, police officers, lawyers and judges.

For example, among other things, the founder of the British False Memory Society was accused by his daughter (then about 30 years of age) of wilfully breaking her legs during some sadistic sexual orgy when she was a young child. And even though the X-Ray evidence showed that her legs had never been broken, and a whole swathe of other evidence showed that her claims were ridiculous, he was still persecuted for some years by many workers involved with child protection.

These hateful witch-hunts by fantasists in the child abuse industry were directed not only at parents, but also against professionals who worked with children.

In America, for example, almost the entire staff at a nursery care centre was accused by children as young as five years old of the most appalling acts of sexual abuse following months of 'therapy'. Indeed, the owner of the nursery, Bob Kelly, was given twelve consecutive life sentences for sexually abusing children in, among other things, a spacecraft, and in shark-infested waters; sharks which some of the children claimed he would catch and then place in the nursery's swimming pool. (See Innocence Lost.)

 it was becoming impossible for any man to spend any time being anywhere near children.

This nightmare was inflicted on western populations for over a decade - from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. And it was becoming impossible for any man to spend any time being anywhere near children.

After all, 20, 30, or 40 years later, any children (including one's own children) could easily end up visiting one of the many 'recovered memory' therapists who would then convince them that they had been sexually abused somewhere in the very distant past.

Who knew what could happen if, as adults, their children visited a therapist for some psychological advice to do with, say, dieting, or whatever?

Indeed, one widely publicised claim by a feminist 'child expert' in the USA was that 100,000 women died from anorexia each year. And that anorexia was caused by child sex-abuse. 

It turned out - much later - that about 100 women died from anorexia each year, and that child sex-abuse had nothing to do with it.

But can you just imagine what the parents - especially the fathers - of anorexic daughters must have gone through as this baloney was splashed across the media and injected into the minds of the population?

Just imagine it!

Even their own daughters would have been unsure as to what might have happened to them all those years ago.

Even their own daughters would have been unsure as to what might have happened to them all those years ago. And, of course, even the wives of these men began to view them with suspicion. After all, if their daughters were anorexic, someone must have sexually abused them.

Please try to imagine how much and how far widespread was the damage that was caused to tens of thousands of families across the western world by this hateful nonsense about anorexia.

And what about those fathers who were actually accused?

Can you just imagine what they must have gone through - having to face their wives, their friends, their colleagues and their other children.

Not to mention the police, the social workers, the entire anti-male justice system and, of course, the media.

With the nightmarish prospect of going to prison as a child sex abuser should they be found guilty.

You need to think about that.

Falsely accused of some of the most horrendous crimes by their very own children.

Those men must have had to bear the most appalling torment - for months and years on end; probably never to recover.

Quite a few of them committed suicide.

And the NSPCC had a part to play in all of this.

But this type of chicanery was not only being applied in the case of anorexia.

There were numerous other ailments that were being said to be the result of child-sexual abuse; e.g. not being able to concentrate at school, appearing to be uncommunicative, constipation, an interest in the opposite sex, depression etc etc - the list is long.

And in the climate of the hysteria that prevailed - and that was continually being stirred up by the abuse industry and the feminists - all men started to be regarded with suspicion. And if, for example, their own children had one of the many ailments that were alleged to have been caused by child sex-abuse, then the fingers started wagging and pointing at them. 

the NSPCC was playing a major role in destroying the social fabric of the whole nation.

And in the UK, the NSPCC was doing its own bit to pile on the suspicion. As such, the NSPCC was playing a major role in destroying the social fabric of the whole nation.

It was supporting the view that a significant percentage of fathers were sexually abusing their children - in some of the most appalling ways imaginable - and it was endorsing the view that therapists who were nothing more than sexual fantasists were dragging up real memories of abuse in their bogus therapy sessions.

In other words, the NSPCC gave public credence to malicious deluded fraudsters.

But I'll bet that the money flowed in as a result.

And all fathers were placed under suspicion as a result of their phony claims. 

All of them.

And such was the level of the hysteria that fathers were not only being suspected by everyone in the country, they were even being suspected by their very own wives and children; who could never quite see them again in the same trusting light - because they were continually being urged to have doubts about them.

A further consequence of this was that men fled the teaching profession. The youth clubs could not find men to engage with them; thus leaving young boys stranded on the streets with nothing to do. Fathers were throwing in the towel. And men started to abandon children in droves.

The NSPCC also endorsed the view that Satanic ritual abuse was taking place across the nation

The NSPCC also endorsed the view that Satanic ritual abuse was taking place across the nation. Indeed, it even published 'indicators' of this non-existent Satanic abuse so that the public could look out for the signs in children. Groups of families were raided early in the morning, with children hauled into social service care homes to be interrogated by sex-crazed therapists who badgered them over hours, days and months in order to compel them to admit to having been subjected to Satanic abuse of some form.

Needless to say, they were kept away from their parents during this time.

 the NSPCC helped to damage the relationships of just about everybody in the country

During this decade alone, the NSPCC helped to damage the relationships of just about everybody in the country - with those between men and children being damaged most of all.

And even though the abuse hysteria has now subsided considerably - though it still remains at high levels - many of its effects are still with us today, and we all bear the scars in one form or another.

Indeed, it was this hysteria (hotly inflamed also by the feminists with regard to the sexual abuse of women and domestic violence) that led to the huge corruption of the western legal systems of justice wherein men began to be punished, persecuted and/or prosecuted even on the basis of the most impossible and unlikely of accusations. 

And men have been thrown out of their jobs and fathers kicked out of their homes simply on the basis of accusations.

The notion that, "Accusations must always be believed," became what is now the rule.

 trial proceedings in the courtrooms became completely corrupted and stacked against men

And so it was that trial proceedings in the courtrooms became completely corrupted and stacked against men who were accused of 'abuse'.

And this corruption continues to increase to this day.

And the NSPCC has, throughout, had very much to do with all this; both directly and indirectly.

The NSPCC also seemed to suggest that having men working with young children was a problem, as indicated in the following recent piece by Julian Grenier ...

You might think that organisations concerned with children's welfare would promote a discussion about how children are best cared for in nurseries. Instead, the NSPCC chose to flag up hysterical fears about men working in childcare, holding a conference in 1994 which concluded that the question of whether men should work in daycare at all was 'a difficult issue'

... and this sort of thing also infused the country with the notion that men should never be trusted to be alone with children without close scrutiny. 

It really was becoming virtually impossible for men to have any close contact with children

It really was becoming virtually impossible for men to have any close contact with children - including their own - not only because there was continued suspicion being cast upon all men by the antics of the NSPCC (and others) but also because the consequences of an accusation - no matter how incredible - were just too horrendous, and very long term in their effects.

And part of the legacy still very much in evidence today is that men and fathers are not to be trusted. They are deemed likely to be abusive towards their partners and their children (no matter what the evidence) and, as such, when any accusations against them are made - no matter how unfounded - they are very often persecuted, punished and/or prosecuted.

 genuine victims of abuse have also been harmed horrendously by the NSPCC

I have also pointed out in my various articles how genuine victims of abuse have also been harmed horrendously by the NSPCC; e.g. see NSPCC- Children's Charities Sued for Millions?

And, almost unbelievably, this also applies to children in care homes.

As just one example, this is the description given by a particularly articulate young man in his early twenties describing (on BBC's Question Time) what it was like during the 80s and 90s being brought up in a care home run by social workers. 

He had been in care from the age of 5 to 18. And thanks to the fear that the staff had of being falsely accused of abuse at some later stage (e.g. some bogus recovered memory) he was never cuddled, never kissed and never touched by the staff.

In other words, the most damaged and vulnerable children have had to be brought up in cold emotionally-isolated conditions where they are treated as if they had some terrible contagious disease.

"We were just numbers. They didn't care for us at all," were some of the words that I remember him saying. 

And so you can also thank the child-abuse hysteria emanating from people like those at the NSPCC for the emotionless, loveless gulag that tens of thousands of our most deprived children have had to endure throughout their childhood.

And in more recent times - largely, I presume, because the public is beginning to see through its various shenanigans when it comes to sexual abuse - the NSPCC has focused on the issue of smacking in order to extend its tentacles and so increase its money supply.

 we see the NSPCC trying to damage families by demonising decent parents

Once again, therefore, we see the NSPCC trying to damage families by demonising decent parents; this time for trying to discipline their own children. And once again we are fed with 'research' findings on this issue that are mostly worse than worthless; e.g. see Smack those Bottoms?

And who is this, do you think? ...

He complained of "witch hunts" and whispering campaigns. The police, he said ,... are "obsessed with child abuse in carrying out their failed pervert hunt using unfair tactics." The most recent letter was to the Queen, mailed five days before the massacre. "As well as my personal distress and loss of public standing," he wrote, "this situation has also resulted in loss of business and ability to earn a living. Indeed, I cannot even walk the streets for fear of embarrassing ridicule."

Yes. That's right. Thomas Hamilton. The man who went crazy and shot and killed sixteen children in Dunblane.

Yep: It can even be said that the NSPCC had a hand in this too. But, of course, this connection was never mentioned in the press.

You see. The journalists - especially in the tabloids - knew how complicit they had been in fostering the abuse hysteria through their newspapers. So they focused almost exclusively on the issue of banning certain guns in order to divert the public's attention from the possible truth surrounding the cause of Hamilton's murderous fury.

Guns are the problem, they said.

And this suited even the government - which saw an opportunity to grab a bit more power unto itself by banning certain guns.

But the evidence suggests that Thomas Hamilton - very strange man that he was - 'so proud of his boys' - paedophile or not - lost his cool, and decided, presumably, to hurt the type of people whom he thought had caused him so much misery by spreading, what he considered to be, malicious rumours about him for so long.

Parents.

He killed their children.

It was the most hurtful way in which he could punish them.

And nearly the whole world mourned.

That's how bad it was.

And, needless to say, all the 'abuse' pundits even managed to turn this tragedy into yet another man-hating money-spinner. "Thomas Hamilton, the evil child abuser."

That man was a positive goldmine for many people.

There is a fortune to be had from demonising men.

There is a fortune to be had from demonising men.

But you can bet your last dollar that it was not just Thomas Hamilton who became far more aggressive and murderous as a result of the hysteria being generated. Genuine victims of past sexual abuse would have been intimidated and threatened with far greater force by those who had abused them; so that they did not dare spill the beans in the current climate.

it seems to me that there is not a single person who has not been damaged by the NSPCC.

And so it seems to me that there is not a single person who has not been damaged by the NSPCC. And the list of tragedies that people have had to endure as a consequence of its activities must be endless.

I should also point out that I have also come across social workers and workers in other children's charities who feel more or less the same way. Indeed, many men who work with children get particularly uptight at the way in which the NSPCC portrays them.

Unsurprisingly.

And it is really important for men to understand that organisations such as the NSPCC thrive by generating suspicion and hatred.

Mostly towards men.

After all, for example, the NSPCC could produce a series of advertisements to point out that paedophiles - male and female - probably seek jobs that involve children.

Perhaps it could produce advertisements to show male doctors, dentists, paediatricians, midwives, nurses and nursery school teachers having an extra grope.

Why does the NSPCC not do this?

Well. It does not do this sort of thing because the groups being targeted would object very strongly to being demonised in this way.

But 'men' can be demonised as much as you like.

There is virtually no limit with regard to how much men may be demonised.

And there are at least five reasons for this.

1. There is no powerful lobby group to protect men.

2. Men have been trained in recent times not to see themselves as 'men'.

They see themselves as black, or gay, or as teachers, police officers, or whatever. But they do not see themselves as 'men'.

As an example of this, try telling a male police officer that all male police officers are brainless idiots, and I can almost guarantee you that he will not look too pleased.

But tell him that all men are brainless idiots - which amounts to the same thing - and he will probably laugh.

You see. He sees himself as a police officer, not as a 'man'.

(But if you try telling a woman police officer that all women are brainless idiots, you will almost certainly find a difference in her response to such a claim.)

Men have also been taught to hate men

3. Men have also been taught to hate men and to be forever suspicious of them as a result of the malicious propaganda in which they have been bathed.

Indeed, men now hate men so much that they will even laugh openly at Bobbit jokes. But you will not find them laughing at jokes about women being similarly mutilated.

And this fact ALONE is sufficient proof of how successful have been the campaigns designed to indoctrinate people into hating and despising men.

4. Stirring up hatred towards men is totally consistent with feminists and feminist ideology; both of which also thrive on male hatred. The more male hatred, the better. 

5. Millions of other people benefit hugely by demonising men and by creating hysteria over their misdeeds or their alleged misdeeds - especially if they involve sex. As such, there are many people who are delighted to see the pots of man-hatred being stirred over matters to do with 'abuse'.

 the NSPCC's advertisements and publicity campaigns are designed to make money

Fundamentally, the NSPCC's advertisements and publicity campaigns are designed to make money. And in order to do this, they have to portray people as being 'very bad', and as causing huge damage. 

And men are the easy targets.

If the NSPCC made a series of adverts that kept portraying women in a negative light, it would not be long before there was some kind of uproar in the media and in government.

And one of the reasons for this is that women do see themselves as women.

For example, just imagine what an uproar would take place if the NSPCC produced a series of adverts pointing out that having a single mother as a parent disadvantages children in numerous ways - and that it also makes the children far more vulnerable to 'abuse' from many quarters.

Not only would women be making a huge fuss about this, but the feminists would be up in arms.

But why does the NSPCC not go ahead and do this anyway, if it is so concerned about children?

Well, of course, the answer is that there are billions of pounds to be made every year by organisations that demonise men - and very few people seem likely to object to this demonisation - whereas the same would not apply in the case of demonising women.

And the NSPCC wants a piece of the action.

..................

Added December 2010:

For those of you who still think that I might be exaggerating, here is a quote from an email written by the NCPCC in the past few days, ...

The NSPCC's most recent research into the prevalence of child abuse does not distinguish between natural or biological parents and step-parents, instead referring to parents or carers.

In other words, the NSPCC is actually determined to hide the fact that thousands of our children would be better off, and better protected, in numerous ways, if they were cared for by their own parents.

Yep; the NSPCC is actually trying to bury this fact by obfuscating the data.

How can its staff possibly have the nerve to claim that the welfare of children is their highest priority?

Quite clearly, it isn't.

How much more proof do you need, eh?

.................

the NSPCC is an organism that thrives on breaking up people's relationships

Fundamentally, the NSPCC is an organism that thrives on breaking up people's relationships, and in order to do this it demonises and casts hatred and suspicion on those involved in close relationships - with men being the primary target. And, at the moment, it is also trying to demonise all parents, and to pull the children away from them; e.g. via the smacking issue.

And here is Frank Furedi describing other tactics now being used by the NSPCC to drive a further wedge between parents and their children ...

Today, it launches new 'research' in order to promote its 'Someone To Turn To' campaign. Ostensibly, the aim of this campaign is to get children to talk to people about their anxieties. However, its real objective is to target children and to get them to communicate their family problems and parental misdeeds to disinterested lobby groups like the NSPCC.

Well, of course, as must be obvious, the more that all our children are gradually enticed further away from their parents, and, hence, further away from their control and scrutiny, the more vulnerable are they to those who want them for other purposes.

In general, therefore, I think that there is a very strong case for saying that the NSPCC has damaged people emotionally, psychologically, socially, morally, legally, economically and even physiologically.

But I will leave it to the reader to make the connections.

After all, they are fairly obvious.

But it is men who have been damaged the most.

men and fathers should keep asking themselves why it seems so difficult for men to be treated properly these days

Furthermore, men and fathers should keep asking themselves why it seems so difficult for men to be treated properly these days, and why it seems impossible to get the authorities to listen to them. Why, for example, do they have so many problems with CAFCASS or the CSA? And part of the answer is that, fundamentally, no-one likes them and/or cares for them very much.

And, quite frankly, until the leaders of the various men's groups remove their blinkers and look at the bigger picture, they will achieve nothing. They are wasting their time, and everybody else's.

And while some more perceptive men's activists can, indeed, see the bombs dropping from the sky on men from all over the place, they still mostly do not really understand why this is happening. Yes. It's the feminists, the government, the women's groups, the BBC, the chat shows, the women's magazines, CAFCASS, the CSA, the NSPCC etc etc etc. But what they really need to understand is that the basic force behind their appalling attitudes towards men is energised and maintained by well-orchestrated well-funded campaigns designed to stir up a hatred of men.

And the NSPCC has been engaged in many such campaigns.

It is by generating a hatred of men that these people make much of their living

It is by generating a hatred of men that these people make much of their living, and it is the hatred of men that they have generated that allows them to get away with it; because no-one any longer cares much about men.

Indeed, readers ought also to be aware that the NSPCC has also been involved in persuading successfully TV producers (e.g. of soap operas) to refrain from broadcasting any storylines which suggest that accusations of child abuse might be false.

And so, even when it comes to fiction, the NSPCC has gone out of its way to make sure that the public remains hypnotised with the view that all men who are accused of abuse must be 'guilty'.

Men who have been falsely accused must not be allowed to exist even in fiction!

And this is why, for example, men now virtually have to prove their innocence whenever they are accused of 'abuse' against women or children; and why they remain horribly tainted and horribly treated even when no real evidence stands against them.

They are guilty!

And with the NSPCC continuing to rely for its funding on the masterful creations of various people working for the likes of Saatch and Saatchi - the most expert and most professional emotional manipulators in the world -  such as those highly emotional advertisements depicting various ordinary-looking men as paedophiles or as child-batterers, the situation seems unlikely to improve - to put it mildly.

And yet there are many children's charities, thousands of social workers, and hordes of others working in other professions that help abused children without needing to deluge the entire nation with suspicion and hatred towards others. 

The NSPCC, however, thrives on such things.

Furthermore, the NSPCC's annual spending (about 40 million) on children in need is tiny compared to the total amount spent on this matter through other avenues. As such, its tactics for obtaining its funding are even less justifiable.

Finally, as I write this, members of Fathers4Justice are preparing to launch further campaigns in support of fathers who are being prevented from having decent contact with their children.

But the truth of the matter is that, at some level, all fathers - yes, ALL fathers - are being prevented from having decent contact with their children, thanks to the way in which they are continually being demonised and treated - either as 'fathers' or as 'men'.

 all fathers are having their children deeply poisoned against them.

Whether they realise it or not, all fathers are having their children deeply poisoned against them.

And many fathers have even given up completely, preferring to walk away in order to save themselves and everyone else the pain and the aggravation of themselves having to struggle continually - and often failing in the face of the massive malicious onslaught - to prove their worth.

And you can also partly blame the NSPCC for this.

Is this the kind of sick society that you really want to live in? ...

In Staffordshire, a vicar has been forced to step down as the chairman of governors of a school after he kissed a girl on the forehead in a maths class.

According to the Telegraph, ...

Last night the girl's mother said that more action should have been taken against Mr Barrett. 

"I am so disappointed with the way it has been handled and I would like him to be removed from his position," she said. 

She has complained to the school's board of governors, Staffordshire education authority, the police and Brian Jenkins, the Labour MP for Tamworth.

A priest cannot even kiss a child on the forehead in public without the police, social services and politicians getting involved.

What messages do you think children receive about men - i.e. you - when they hear about this sort of thing going on? What kind of sick society panders to the notion that a single kiss on the forehead is an assault of grievous dimensions? What infuses the mother of this child with such extraordinary vindictiveness and overblown hysteria that she feels justified in seeking to destroy the reputation and standing of a good man who, at worst, made a slightly inappropriate gesture of kindness?

Well, it is groups like the NSPCC that have been promoting this sort of thing; because they thrive on generating suspicion, hysteria, hatred and hostility.

They are demonising every man in the country and deeply poisoning all their relationships.

And if you are a man, and you think that such things do not affect you, or do not apply to you, then you must be one of the most stupid men on the planet.

(Also see my piece What a Piece of Sh*t is Man.)

Ritual Satanic Abuse Baloney The former Communist and noted feminist Beatrix Campbell wrote a series of articles and made a Channel 4 Dispatches programme promoting the myth more enthusiastically than any American evangelist group or salacious tabloid. Dolan Cummings

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) published so-called 'Satanic indicators', a shameful endorsement of irrational panic that has not prevented the organisation retaining respect and patronage for its ongoing promotion of the idea that more mundane child abuse is routine today.

No Man Is Safe There is a growing fear among men that their actions towards young children may be misconstrued. Fathers are frightened to touch let alone bathe their daughters, and grandfathers are afraid to display affection towards their grandchildren. Chris Thompson - 1998

Child Abuse Hysteria The event that dramatically revealed the ascendancy of the abuse obsession in Britain (while also imposing some limits on it) was the Cleveland child sexual abuse scandal of 1987. In the course of a few months, more than 120 children were removed from their homes in this industrial town in the northeast and taken into local authority care, following allegations that they had been sexually abused, usually by their fathers. Dr Michael Fitzpatrick - 6 min

NSPCC Is Repulsive The notion that talking about child abuse remains taboo is perverse. In reality we are subjected to a barrage of repulsive propaganda implying that it is everywhere. Mick Hume


October 2005 ... An example of the NSPCC's latest bid to demonise parents in order to gather in the donations ...

Should readers wish to email the NSPCC's directors to complain about their appalling activities, here are their email addresses.

 

pnoyes@nspcc.org.uk,mmarsh@nspcc.org.uk,jgrounds@nspcc.org.uk, ccloke@nspcc.org.uk,wcuell@nspcc.org.uk

End Note:

Apart from the fact that most children are less likely to report sexual abuse because of the barbaric way in which the perpetrators - most likely their intimates - are going to be treated, there are a host of other negative consequences that all our children have to bear as a result of the malicious abuse propaganda that keeps being foisted into the atmosphere by the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.

Firstly, children who have actually been abused are going to suffer far more from the abuse than they would ever have done otherwise; e.g. see Tea Abuse, NSPCC - Children's Charities Sued for Millions?, Do We Need An Abuse Industry?

Secondly, our children are far less properly cared for; e.g. see The Damage To Society Caused by False Accusations.

Thirdly, the relationships between men, women and children are perpetually being poisoned very deeply - with horrendous results; as per the main piece on this page.

Ex-Tory Leader Castigates Self-Serving NSPCC Large charities such as the NSPCC should spend more time helping vulnerable individuals and less time engaging in political campaigns, Iain Duncan Smith said yesterday. Feb 2006

 I cant remember a single thing on the ground that the NSPCC have done.

He singled out the NSPCC and Scope as examples of bad charities. Of the NSPCC, he said: I cant remember a single thing on the ground that the NSPCC have done.

Also see, ...

NSPCC poster

 



List of Articles


rss
AH's RSS Feed

 

Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...

"I cannot thank you enough."

"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."

"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."

"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."

"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."

"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."

"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."

"It is terrific to happen upon your website."

"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."

"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."

"You are worth your weight in gold."

"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."

"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"

"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."

"I have been reading your site for a while now and it is the best thing ever."

"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."

web tracker

 

Share


On YouTube ...

Who Rules Over Us?

Part 1 On Free Will

Part 2 On Super-Organisms

Part 3 On Power

Part 4 On Reality


 

Popular articles ...

... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?

... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.

... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?

...  Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable -  especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."

... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.


rss
AH's RSS Feed

Front Page
(click)