|
24/11/00
The section that immediately follows
comes from the NSPCC's
website - but some of the text has been coloured for emphasis.
NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse
Myths
Its Own Myths!
Common stereotypes about child abuse are overturned in the
NSPCC’s largest ever study of child maltreatment.
Myth: the most common form of abuse suffered by
children at home is sexual abuse.
Fact: children are seven times more likely to be beaten
badly by their parents than sexually abused by them.
Myth: most sexual abuse occurs between fathers and their
daughters.
Fact: this type of incestuous relationship is rare,
occurring in less than four in a thousand children.
The most likely relative to abuse within the family is a brother or stepbrother.
Myth: adults are responsible for most sexual violence
against children and young people outside the family.
Fact: children are most likely
to be forced into unwanted sexual activity by other young people, most
usually from someone described as a ‘boyfriend’.(!!!) Less
than three in a thousand of the young people reported sexual behaviour against
their wishes with professionals working with children.
Myth: sexual attacks on children from strangers are
common.
Fact: sexual assaults
involving contact by strangers are very rare. Even with indecent
exposure, only seven per cent of the young people reported ever having been
‘flashed at’, and just over a third of these said the person was a stranger.
Myth: most physical abuse is carried out by men,
especially fathers.
Fact: violent acts towards
children are more likely to be meted out by mothers than fathers (49%
of the sample experienced this from mothers and 40% from fathers).
NSPCC Director Mary Marsh says: Modern myths about child
cruelty have emerged from the public attention given to horrific and frightening
cases of child abuse by strangers. Other traditional stereotypes come from a
historical wellspring of children’s stories about wicked adult bogey figures.
These stereotypes have become part of popular culture. This report challenges us
to re-examine preconceived ideas about child cruelty. In some cases it calls on
policy-makers and professionals to overhaul thinking and reconsider how to
approach different kinds of child maltreatment.
So, Director Mary Marsh tells us that
these myths have arisen because of the public attention given to horrific and
frightening cases and from children's stories about the bogey man. And she tells
us that this is where all the public hysteria and mis-information has come from.
HOGWASH
For the past thirty years it is the
children's charities like Childline and the NSPCC itself that have fuelled the
public's hysteria concerning abuse - aided and abetted, of course, by vindictive
man-hating feminists who will seize every opportunity to demean, degrade,
demonise and disempower the male gender.
Isn't it incredible that the so-called experts, who claim to
deal with tens of thousands of children EVERY YEAR, never noticed where
most of the 'abuse' was coming from for all this time?
Isn't it truly
incredible? Literally.
How can we explain it?
FOR THIRTY YEARS we have put
up with the misandric propaganda against fathers and men from children's
charities, and yet, now, they're suddenly
beginning to 'discover' something else - a story that's very different.
At last, in the year 2000, the NSPCC
Shatters Child Abuse Myths - by using some of its donated millions to conduct an
objective survey!
If there was any outward proof to date that
these so-called children's charities are nothing more than propaganda
machines who make money by stirring up the nation with their hysterical
bullsh*t - then this is it.
Think about it. This latest study
was based upon the responses of an NSPCC survey of about 3,000 young
adults over 18 years old.
WHY ON EARTH DID THEY NEED SUCH A
HUMBLE SURVEY OF 3,000 YOUNG PEOPLE WHEN THEY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVING MILLIONS OF
CALLS - AND DEALING WITH MILLIONS OF CASES -
- OVER THE PAST THREE
DECADES?
Putting it another way: What kind
of rubbish must they have been disseminating for all these years? And on
what basis?
AND WHY?
The real truth of the matter is
that the abuse industry will generate any figures that it can get away
with in order to increase its funds. If the public will swallow this
percentage of child abuse or that percentage of domestic violence, the
'charities' will go for it. It's as simple as that.
They're a business!
The more claims you make about your
product and the more you persuade the public that they need it, the more
money you will make.
That's the way that business
works.
With 'real' products, however, you
just can't make outrageous claims in this way, because the law doesn't
allow it - and those who contravene the Sale of Goods Act or the
Advertising Standards Codes are likely to be prosecuted.
Not so for the charities. Their
'product' is intangible. It can't be tested.
Wonderful.
I wish I had a product to sell
which I could describe in any way that I choose, with no comeback, and no
redress, for the outrageous claims that I could make for it.
Making money almost purely from the
generation of hysterical and worrisome statistics has got to be one of the
easiest ways of making a handsome profit - as feminist groups will tell
you - particularly if the attractive and attention-grabbing world of 'sex
abuse' is involved. (See How
would the Nation Survive without Child Abuse?)
It doesn't matter what the truth
is, nor what the objective valid research shows, all that matters in this
game is "Will the public swallow it?"
Add a host of washed-out TV
celebrities to the cause, or a squalid herd of desperate 'artists' who
currently need free publicity for their movies and their songs, and you
increase the credibility of your statistics in the eyes of an awestruck
and gullible public.
The result is some further fame and
fortune for those who masquerade as 'being concerned' coupled with an
avalanche of misery for everyone else - especially the children.
Here's Janet Street-Porter (a feminist
who knows more about the UK media than most) writing
in The Independent about the BBC's annual event devoted to Children In Need.
I don't believe that the
BBC's remit includes the right to fill its main channel for hours on end with
second-rate presenters begging us to donate money to any cause, no matter how
worthy. Children in Need gives millions of pounds to charity ... but it has been
hijacked by pop stars seeking to sell their products through exposure on a prime
channel at a time when viewing figures are at their highest.
... This represents a
cosy conspiracy between the marketing directors of the major record companies
and the programme's producers. Would anyone want to appear on this show if they
didn't have something to sell? It doesn't matter whether they are performing or
not. Their very appearance on this extravaganza represents a coup for their
marketing machines.
... It's a shame that
this money cannot be raised without the intrusion of commercial companies (who
blatantly flaunt their brand names and flout the BBC's sponsorship code of
practice) and pop stars, many of whom could well afford to donate vast sums of
money to charity without having to plug their latest offerings in the process.
Of course they can afford to give their services for nothing – it's all part
of their marketing strategy.
Why A Survey Now?
Why has the NSPCC funded this survey now
- and how come it is prepared to expose how diabolically incompetent it must
have been for all these years?
The answer to the first question is
straightforward. Children's charities cannot continue with their wicked
anti-male propaganda and their abuse hysteria because the TRUTH is continually
being shoved into the public arena by campaigning websites such as this one, and
by the growing number of men's organisations throughout the world who are
lobbing the real facts at the media and government. By paying for and allying
itself to this survey, the NSPCC can, at last, claim to be in the 'forefront' of
some objective research.
The answer to the second question is even
simpler. The NSPCC doesn't really have a choice about exposing its true
ignorance. It merely hopes that no-one will notice what this survey reveals
about the NSPCC's own history of ineptitude - indeed, none of the national
newspapers do seem to have noticed.
MPs and journalists need to be bombarded with the question as to how it is
that the NSPCC has taken thirty odd years to 'shatter the child abuse myths'
with one simple survey. And they should be asked to think about the nature of
organisations which claim to have experts on the needs of children but who clearly,
for over thirty years, have failed to even notice that all the above myths are
false!
Some experts!
For example, consider the following.
Myth: most sexual abuse occurs between fathers and their
daughters.
Fact: this type of incestuous relationship is rare,
occurring in less than four in a thousand children.
The most likely relative to abuse within the family is a brother or stepbrother.
But are we really to believe that
the NSPCC 'experts on children' failed to realise this?
FOR
THIRTY YEARS!?
Surely this would be very strong PROOF
indeed that the organisation was in the hands of some extremely
incompetent people?
On the other hand, if these 'experts' knew
this was nothing but a myth all along, then why have they not mentioned it? Why have
they determinedly poisoned the image of fathers with their
highly-emotional campaigns? (For example, remember the NSPCC's DADDY.
DADDY. STOP IT campaign on the ENVELOPES of all those electricity and gas
bills?) And what deeply sinister motives led them to
do this and to obscure the truth?
Either way, whether they failed to
notice the truth, or whether they simply ignored it, this is not an
organisation to be proud of.
Well, did NSPCC staff know the
truth or didn't they?
Of course they did. They must have
done.
Think about all the abuse cases
that they have dealt with over the years, and all the millions of
discussions that must have taken place, whether formal discussions between
the legal and the 'caring' professionals, those discussions with the
parents and relatives, those with the children, in the courtrooms, in the
children's homes, chatting in the canteen, and so on. Think of the
overwhelming amount of data that must have been right in front of their
noses.
It must have been blatantly obvious
that fathers were the least responsible for the abuse of their children.
And, with regard to this particular myth, it must have been very clear
indeed that young girls were very rarely sexually assaulted by their
fathers.
So, why did the NSPCC campaigns
target the fathers more than any other group?
The answer is money. Whether it be
domestic violence, rape, assault or abuse, there is money and government
funding to be made by creating the myth that the male gender is an evil
gender that needs to be stamped upon. Once this myth has been implanted
into the public consciousness and misperceived as a truth, then charities and
women's groups can easily step in and claim that they can help to protect
vulnerable victims provided that they are given MONEY - lots of it.
All these groups are aware that
vilifying men means money, and, in concert, they have buttressed and
supported each other's fabrications and deceits concerning men.
The whole child-abuse industry (which very much
also includes the legal profession and the media) is nothing more than a
dishonest and socially-destructive racket made rich and fat on the foul
falsehoods that it keeps feeding to the public.
(New NSPCC Adverts Demonise Fathers The second
advert, which features a young girl who is terrified when her father enters her room at night, pushes the message that the charity needs to raise £7m a month through fundraising and
donations. Yes indeed. Despite the fact that fathers are the least
likely group to sexually abuse their children - even according to
their own research - the NSPCC staff want money! And demonising
fathers will bring in this money.)
Millions of men in the west have
lost their families, their homes, their children, their jobs and/or their
liberty as a direct result of the deceitful misrepresentations of the
truth by these abominable organisations. And many men have lost their
human dignity, their purpose and their lives.
The NSPCC has made its millions by
attacking all men and fathers. It has portrayed them so successfully as
abusers or as potential abusers that all men are now under suspicion. It has made
their very own children wary of them. It has made
all their motives very suspect. It has encouraged people to view all men in a
very negative light and people have been continually urged to make
allegations against them.
The NSPCC is doing a great deal of
damage to our country.
Anyway, here's Richard Ingrams writing
last year in The Guardian (21/3/99)
The National Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has discovered that the public is
insufficiently aware of the problems of child abuse. This, despite the fact that
there are nightly news bulletins and documentaries on the subject and that no
contemporary soap opera, play or police drama is nowadays complete without some
reference to the topic. Undeterred, the NSPCC is currently running a series of
'shock' commercials on ITV to alert everyone to the problem.
Child abuse is a serious
issue but, thanks to the media and miscellaneous campaigners, it has become a
cliché of the entertainment industry.
Far from alerting people,
the tasteless, vulgar NSPCC commercials, produced at enormous expense by Saatchi
and Saatchi, will merely add to the unhelpful hysteria which clouds the issue -
in addition to disturbing suggestible viewers, like all such attempts to shock.
Along with all do-gooding
charities campaigning on behalf of animals, children and wildlife, the
activities and pronouncements of the NSPCC are seldom questioned. Yet their
record in the child-abuse field is by no means a distinguished one. Experts have
queried their statistics on the amount of child abuse which they claim is
committed. And few did more than the NSPCC to foment the hysteria over the
satanic abuse scare when it came to this country from America in 1990. NSPCC
officials were active in supporting the wildest stories which at that time went
around, notably in the Orkneys (where several children were forcibly removed
from their parents) and also in Nottingham, where the NSPCC, along with council
social workers, encouraged children to indulge in wild fantasies about
witchcraft and cannibalism. Yet, after a number of exhaustive enquiries by the
police and other professionals, not a single scrap of evidence was ever produced
to support these stories.
|
