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
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
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
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
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
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
on to men in order to rake in donations, the NSPCC blithely does exactly
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
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
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
I also remember the NSPCC promoting the recovered
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
These hateful witch-hunts by fantasists in the child abuse industry were
directed not only at parents, but also against professionals who worked with
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
... 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,
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
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? ...
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 ...
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
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
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.