Harry

Especially For Young Women

 
   

The section that immediately follows comes from the NSPCC's website.


NSPCC poster

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.

 violent acts towards children are more likely to be meted out by mothers

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,  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 THOUSANDS OF CALLS - AND DEALING WITH THOUSANDS 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 abuse industry will generate any figures that it can get away with in order to increase its funds

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

 Why have they determinedly poisoned the image of fathers

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.

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.

demonising fathers will bring in this money

(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 wants money. And demonising fathers will bring in this money.)

Anyway, here is Richard Ingrams writing last year in The Guardian.

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.

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

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

Also see ... 

 NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped

... to get some idea of how everyone's relationships have been damaged by the antics of the NSPCC.

 



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)