The Truth About IPP Sentences

Is the NSPCC being dishonest in order to get our money?

Is the NSPCC just a big con trick?

According to the latest scare story from the NSPCC, at least 64 children are sexually abused every day in England and Wales; a claim that some may wish to question given that the NSPCC has already had one of its major advertising campaigns stopped by the Advertising  Standards Authority for being misleading.

In common with other charities, the NSPCC has seen a drop in its revenue since people realised that they couldn’t go on unnecessarily spending money. Like the rest of the child protection industry therefore, every now and again it needs to put its head above the parapet and come out with some new, dramatic report explaining to everybody that the country is filled with sexual perverts ranging from old men who allegedly committed the offences 50 years ago to kids in primary school who can barely spell the word sex, let alone carry out a sexual assault.

According to the well known charity – or business, depending on your point of view – more than 23,000 offences – including rape, incest and gross indecency – were recorded by police in 2009-10, an 8% increase on 2008-9.

For the first time, its research also looked at the age of abusers and apparently found that a quarter were aged under 18. One in four alleged victims was aged 11 or under.

According to the NSPCC, more than half of the victims were aged between 12 and 15, one in four was aged five to 11, and more than 1,000 were aged four or younger.

“More than 2,000 suspects in these cases were under 18. It’s clear we need more services that address the harmful sexual behaviour of young people, as well as adult offenders.”

What that actually means is that they want more money.

You will note the use of the word “suspects”; so it is by no means certain whether these figures represent real offences or not but, given that the prisons are not full to bursting with children convicted of sex offences, it is a fair bet that the “abuse” quoted has neither been proved nor verified.

Reports such as the one in question often use complex mathematical models to extrapolate the data from smaller samples. It is the same method used by opinion polls – and none of us would bet next year’s income on one of those.

Once again, the emphasis is on “stranger danger” when in fact, as any child protection ‘expert’ will tell you, over 90% of abuse takes place in the home.

The problem is that neither the government or the NSPCC want to suggest that family members are to blame because it is through them that both bodies raise their income; the government through taxation and the NSPCC from individuals. Therefore, they concentrate on the idea of strangers seducing or attacking children, even though the real threat from strangers is tiny compared with the threat of abuse from within the family.

The NSPCC was formed towards the end of the 19th century in what may be described as an expression of collective guilt for the mistreatment of children that had been prevalent in Britain for hundreds of years prior to its formation.

That collective guilt continues to this day and is used by various charitable organisations, the NSPCC among them, to generate millions of pounds every year by laying a guilt trip on the rest of us. What is terrifying is how little of that money actually goes towards the day to day protection of children and how much of it is absorbed in what can only be described as “corporate costs”.

If ever one needed any proof of the fact that much of the money collected from the public, benefactors and other sources under the pretext of spending it on the protection of children is actually used for the running of the organisation, one need only look at the corporate structure and indeed the corporate nature of the organisation.

The NSPCC has more well paid executives than many successful companies – and that is before you look into the lower levels of the organisation which also support its own internal executive industry. Take a look at the list below taken from their annual report:

Chief executive*
Andrew Flanagan

Director of corporate planning and performance*
Nicola Alderson

Director of fundraising*
Paul Amadi

Interim director of communications*
Keith Bradbrook

Director of finance and corporate services*
Ian Chivers

Director of services for children and families*
Wes Cuell

General counsel and company secretary*
Catherine Dixon

Director of child protection consultancy*
John Grounds

Director of adult advice and information services*
Peter Liver

Director of human resources*
Alistair Milne

Director of strategy and development*
Phillip Noyes

Director of ChildLine services*
Christine Renouf

Director of internal audit and inspection
Mary Handley

No wonder the charity needs so much money and may be prepared to be dishonest in order to get it.

According to last year’s annual report, available at, the organisation used 71% of its income on what is described as “activities to end cruelty to children”. In monetary terms, that translates to £112,926,000, a figure which is by most people’s standards, an enormous amount of money.

To get to the truth of the matter, one has to examine how the money was spent. These are some of the categories put forward by the NSPCC when describing where the money goes:

  • Services directly for children and families.
  • Child protection helplines and websites.
  • Public awareness, education, influencing and motivation to take action.
  • Partnerships with other child protection organisations.
  • Professional training on safeguarding and child protection.
  • Research on the causes of, and responses to, child abuse.

The most ambiguous of all is undoubtedly the first one which is vaguely described as “Services directly for children and families”.

It is a wonderfully ambiguous title which no doubt could cover a multitude of sins if that was the intention. Even if you wade through the very lengthy report, it is hard to see exactly where most of this money goes. The more one looks, the more vague and complicated it becomes.

The NSPCC acquired ChildLine, the organisation originally set up by Esther Ranzen some years ago. The strange thing is, that although the NSPCC allegedly pay for ChildLine, the helpline also has received a £30 million from the government spread over four years. To be more precise, it has received £30 million from you and me whether we wanted to give it or not.

The third item on the list, “Public awareness, education, influencing and motivation to take action” is a masterpiece of meaningless gobbledygook which could cover everything from placing an advert in a newspaper to supporting a campaign led by the Sun newspaper, hosting an expensive dinner or whatever, all of which involves somebody making a profit somewhere.

Here’s another one: “Influencing and public education – carrying out research into the nature and effects of child abuse and responses to it, influencing policy makers, raising public awareness to end cruelty to children and informing the public at large of the impact on society of child abuse”

The key element in the item above is “influencing policy makers”. This is one area in which the NSPCC is very successful.

Unfortunately, the influence that they wield over politicians sometimes includes the use of out-dated and inaccurate information, often wrapped up in a blanket of ambiguity. They don’t mention that all that is necessary for a £7,000,000 piece of ‘research’ to be classed as ‘education’ is just one reference to a web address or a paragraph telling the reader where to find more information; a trick often used by charities and other organisations, including government.

If you can be bothered to read the full report, (it will take you half a day), you may quickly come to the conclusion that at least 70% of the income received by the NSPCC goes towards supporting its own existence rather than protecting children.

The organisation has form too and has already been proved to have been misleading people, according to the Advertising Standards Authority.

For example, in 2009, the NSPCC was forced to take down an advertising campaign that claimed that 1 in 6 children were being sexually abused. It turned out that the report commissioned by the NSPCC and from which the data was taken was 9 years old and, amongst other things did not define what was and what was not classified as sexual abuse.

Meanwhile, the MPs, Home Office, police and just about everyone else had swallowed the lot believing it to be true. The result was a whole flurry of new legislation, most of which was directed at the wrong target. (see below)

In response to the Advertising Standards Authority ban, a spokesman for the NSPCC said: “We have accepted the ruling from the ASA. Our study Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom is an authoritative piece of research that is held in high regard and has been cited in numerous journals and parliamentary debates.

“The fieldwork was carried out in 1998/99 and the final report published a year later. At the time it provided – and still provides – the best estimate of the prevalence of child abuse in the UK.

“We are currently in the process of carrying out a second prevalence study that will update and add to the earlier report.”

Note the reference to the report being cited in parliamentary debates. Oh, the stupidity and gullibility of weak, pathetic politicians who dare not argue against the Status Quo. suggests that this is proof indeed that the charity is not always honest in its claims and will stop at nothing, including grossly exaggerating the facts, in order to convince us all that we cannot possibly live without the NSPCC in our lives.

Another money-making industry spawned and encouraged by the NSPCC, deliberately or otherwise, is that of “training and Consultancy. Last year’s reports quotes “Child protection training and consultancy – delivering a child protection training and consultancy service to those working with children from our centre in Leicester, and in London.”

Again, the inference is that Britain is so full of sexual deviants that a huge industry that is worth millions of pounds is absolutely necessary if we are to survive this supposed scourge of modern life. Regrettably however, the child protection “industry”, led by the NSPCC relies on generating and maintaining fear and guilt in the public mind in order to successfully get the rest of us to pay for their comfortable salaries. believes that the biggest problem of all with the NSPCC is that ever since its creation, it has been supported by royalty, celebrities and politicians. Today, that situation is the same with everyone from the Queen to the Beckhams supporting it. As a result, everyone is afraid to criticise what is much less of a charity and more of a multi-million pound business.

A Home Office spokesman said the government would continue to work with groups like the NSPCC to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. Of course it would say that; to do otherwise would bring the tabloids down on its head and would also be tantamount to political suicide; there we see the guilt trip again.

When the “Full Stop” campaign was at its height, no politician or celebrity would dare be seen on television without a green lapel badge indicating support of the campaign. It was as if they had all fallen foul of some awful, spotty contagious disease.

The real tragedy is this: Britain has one of the lowest child populations per head in the EU but also has the largest child protection industry. Just take a look on Google and try to count the number of child charities, training and consultancy companies and so called ‘experts’ offering their wares.  Britain also has more family intrusive laws, more child protection charities, more possible ways to commit a sexual offence and more child protection officials than any other country in Europe.

In terms of alleged sex offences, we lock up more people on less evidence than any other country; we have more “training and consultancy” companies that ‘assist’ the authorities, many of which are run by Americans who have sensibly seen an opportunity to exploit the market. We have hundreds of commercial outfits and individuals who make their incomes from providing CRB checks, sex offender programmes (including the NSPCC), child protection ‘expertise’, child protection psychology, residential care and academic research.

Much, if not most of this is driven and maintained by fear and guilt; guilt at ignoring child abuse for 200 years and fear that there is a paedophile on every street corner, fear that every man (and now woman) who shows an interest in children must be out to harm them; fear of criticism for speaking common sense and, for those in power, fear of political damage unless every new, draconian measure is carried through Parliament without discussion, without debate and without dissension.

My personal view is that the NSPCC and charities like it, although initially full of good intentions, are now nothing but corrupt, greedy organisations that are prepared to do whatever it takes in order to con the rest of us out of our hard-earned cash in order to support themselves. What is more despicable is that they are prepared to use implied guilt in order to do it.

Furthermore, the report mentions the NSPCC’s Statutory Powers. I don’t know about you, but I start to get very worried when I hear about a charity being given “statutory powers” of any sort. That suggests to me that the NSPCC is simply another department of an over-sized, intrusive government; a department that everyone is too afraid to close down. is well aware that the seemingly “Holier than thou” NSPCC and others in the industry will not like this article but if they have a contrary view to express, there is a perfectly usable comment box at the bottom of this page.

It may be though that they are too arrogant and have become too powerful to be bothered to use it.

If they can justify what appears to be a huge waste of our money that could otherwise be spent on genuinely protecting children within the family where most abuse occurs, if they can justify what appears to be a huge con trick to get money out of the rest of us and if they can justify using often exaggerated, out of date or misleading information to force politicians into making unnecessary, draconian and intrusive laws that allow people to be locked up on little or no evidence… if they can do any of that, the comments box is at the bottom of the page.

Tags: , , , ,

35 Responses to Is the NSPCC being dishonest in order to get our money?

  1. Tony
    January 18, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    I donate to the SALVATION ARMY the NSPCC and the RSPCA, after watching a programme on bbc i think it was about uk charities recently i am disgusted with the way they manipulate , throw guilt both directly and indirectly and constantly mither you for more money, after reading this lengthy page i will be stopping my donation to the nspcc and give it to the RNLI instead, i hope they use it as they should being a voluntary organisation, also thinking of stopping rspca and giving it to the homeless ( online ).

  2. James
    October 2, 2016 at 12:30 am

    Appalling daily mail reading cynical right wing scum bags. You should be grateful for the bubbles you all live in. You have no idea of the real world. You keep your pennies.

  3. Dee
    October 10, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    I am African, a continent funded (certainly in recent years) by large charities or foreign ‘Aid’. Reading the comments and main article I have a few observations, we are all really gullible especially when it involves children allowing ourselves to be taken in by glossy ads. There are other ways to make a difference but it requires commitment and effort.
    In todays world it’s always about the money and all the better if you are beyond reproach.
    African politicians have a saying “charity is a way for poor people to give their money to rich people” I think this saying fits for quite a few charities in the UK.

  4. Tom Burey
    October 17, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    I donated to nspcc for quite a number of years being a pensioner too l have to be careful with what little money I have
    on readining a couple of years ago about the ceo salary I stopped the standing order to the nspcc
    since then I have been bombarded with mail and phone calls asking me to donate again


  5. Peter R
    October 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    I have reached a time in my life where I have become cynical of many of the institutions of the UK and now live more happily in Spain where although corruption exists it is more open than in the the UK and charitable institutions. When in business, especially those providing services, I cannot conceive of any company surviving with salaries in excess of 40% of turnover. Sadly all to common in the appalling numbers of charities who dominate the television screen appealing to out guilt.

  6. Kieran Tierney
    December 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Following a highly emotional TV advert by the NSPCC appealing for funds, I asked myself “What do they actually do?” I could not recall seeing them provide any tangible support for children in any area that I had experience of. My previous career involved me on a very limited basis, liaising with schools, case conferences for children at risk, observing social services etc. and the NSPCC have just never featured. Googling them in an attempt to figure out what actual services they do provide, brought me to your site. Question answered, thank you.

  7. retired sw
    November 5, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    The NSPCC is a media company masquerading as a charity. Its CEO is a media man and its two main self serving interdependent functions are raising cash and lobbying for influence. To achieve these objectives it peddles a mixture of half truths, dubious research findings and misleading advertising. But that’s the way to succeed in todays UK ltd

    • Mrs Bakewell
      November 11, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      Dear Retired SW,
      I am especially interested to know how an NSPCC play therapist might gain in some way from providing certain information about a child to Social services. This therapist gave several sessions of play therapy to a child, then sent in a referral which reflected a very bad opinion of the parents. She then brought this ‘evidence’ to a meeting and did not protest when she saw that it was to be used to destroy the family, even though there was no actual evidence that they had harmed the child, apart from her totally unsubstantiated opinion. She also did not offer any advice that their plans would be completely contrary to the Statutory procedures for such investigations. i.e. ‘balanced views, holistic, child-centred, best interests of child, ect’. – the very values and ethos purported to be of the NSPCC. Why would she do this – what could she gain? It most certainly was not about protecting a child, as the child was certainly not harmed.

  8. Mrs Bakewell
    November 4, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Does anyone know if the NSPCC playtherapists get paid by Social Services for their ‘expert’ opinions in child protection cases or any other ideas on whether they might benefit financially from making referrals of abuse via child-line or disclosures during play therapy sessions, etc.

  9. Minnie
    October 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    I work for the NSPCC Services to Children and Families. I am a qualified social worker as are most of my team and management with many years child protection behind us. Our services are free of charge and cover 3 local authorities, we are always at capacity and never turn cases away in both therapeutic and preventative services. We also provide the communications department “Real life” case studies based on our work and many families are actually happy to share their story.

    The organisation does need to generate revenue to help us carry on providing the services for free but people need to realise that there are many departments to big organisations and services to children and families within the NSPCC are doing what we should with the money the public generously donate.

    • Raymond Peytors -
      October 31, 2013 at 8:14 pm

      Editor’s Note:

      I am sure many readers would like to know of any single case where the NSPCC has actually spent money on helping even one child. Not research, not publicity or advertising, not propaganda but actually housing a child, clothing a child or feeding a child.

      There is nothing in your accounts to suggest that even a single child has actually received any material benefit from your organisation, which is what puzzles and concerns people the most. We do however often see the “Director” of this division or the “Chief Executive” of that department appearing on television and spewing out the same, unfounded, misleading and disingenuous statistics about the dangers to children that keep all of you employed.

      Perhaps something like a children’s home or a school placement, an NSPCC hospital or whatever might convince others that the NSPCC is something more than an agency of government and a money-making machine for the executives that run it.

      Please feel free to reply; no doubt our many readers would be happy to read your comments. – Editor

    • Mrs Bakewell
      November 13, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      Dear Minnie,

      Which county do you work in? I wondered if you could advise me as to what format an NSPCC referral would take. i.e. Would it be on NSPCC headed notepaper and would it give unsubstantiated opinions, i.e a child receiving therapy brings in a written disclosure (not against the parents, but someone else), then the therapist sends in a referral to Social services saying that in his opinion the child’s parent must have coached him in this writing and is therefore mentally unbalanced. Then the therapist attends a Social Services meeting and based on this ‘opinion’ it is decided that the child plus his siblings should all be taken from their parents, even without any investigations/without medical opinion or other agency opinion and without even presenting the child or parents views. Does this sound like your experience of an NSPCC therapist who has nothing to gain? Is it possible that some NSPCC therapists play a double role of therapist and false informer? This might sound far fetched, but not in view of all the N. Wales child abuse in children’s homes. This showed the way bad professionals have deliberately infiltrated the systems with intent to harm (Social workers, teachers, police, etc) why not work for the ‘respectable NSPCC’ where your word is respected and trusted? What should parents do in such circumstances? How can any parent trust them, when on seeking their help for their child they are so betrayed and their whole family destroyed. If you believed that a fellow employee was behaving in this way, and your own child who trusted the therapist with his writing, was about to be delivered a double blow – the original abuse from a stranger, then taken from his parents and placed in care with strangers, how would you feel about NSPCC that you work for. Is this the work of the NSPCC – for the prevention of cruelty to children? Who, up the ladder can be trusted to expose such therapists? These parents have tried to request the help of higher NSPCC management, but it was brushed under the carpet. I think the best you can do is to try to accept that such people do get jobs with such organisations. Maybe the power goes to their heads. Or perhaps they receive some reward for services if they comply with providing ‘the evidence being sought’and become, in their minds, the ‘heroes’ that put the nail in the coffin of the alleged bad parents.

    • Pamela curtis
      October 10, 2015 at 1:03 am

      So that’s why your coe ‘s pay them selves £125,000 and £95,000 surly that can be going on more face to face therapy. Not online which insensitive and Un caring.
      Children needed those counilling centres open. Not lining ceo/directors pockets. .. its decusting to think they are using charities to fund their lavish life styles. And they look down on victims as minions to pay or supply their wages. Through government donation and misleading reports.

    • Pamela Curtis
      October 11, 2015 at 6:40 am

      So why do ceo ‘ s get paid £165,000 &£95,000 from a charity that surely needs some of the money for proper therapy, ! Not call centres but face to face therapy, !
      shutting centres has not helped victuals but put them in danger of escape through self harm depression drink and suecide.
      Centre for offenders are left open why young victims suffer with bad self asteme .
      All I can see is nspcc is run by idiots who have no idea or experience in this area and as for social services if it’s not in the book or policies your basically can’t and won’t help.
      who needs £125,000 to live off when a charity needs it more to help young children that have been physical and mentally abuse by an offender who can not change
      Jane Smith mother of a victim of sextant abuse

  10. greedy villain
    August 20, 2013 at 11:43 am

    for 2012 their wages bill was £63 million

    this is a lucrative job, can i apply to be in management?

    i am unscrupulous and dont care that this money should be going to needy children

    i would like a yacht to drink vintage champagne on and this is my chance to achieve it!


  11. vivsbinconned
    April 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Can’t stop laughing at your comments but I paid £2 a month for years so they took me in with their advertising tricks. I was silly enough to think the kids in the ads were just stand ins for real cases. I am disgusted with the NSPCC now I’m wised up. How shocking and annoying to show a blind baby and claim her eyes were poked out. Someone should shut this fat cat organisation down and leave it to social services. The NSPCC business is out for itself to pay most of the big wigs at the top immoral sums. Shame on the NSPCC.

  12. Margaret
    April 1, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Great article, Thanks for airing these views.

    There are two others in particular that could do with some scrutiny, I think.
    1) Age Concern and Help the Aged, which had considerable funds when I looked a while ago, and
    2)Comic Relief.

    My mother attends an Age Concern/Help the Aged group where the main ‘activties’they have arranged are playing Spot the Ball, Bingo
    and Halva, all of which they have to pay for, as “the money goes towards paying for their outings. They ask for quizzes but hardly get them.

    Our children must suffer emotional blackmail so many times a year by the requests from school to support the various charities. With every school in the country contributing to Comic Relief, a massive amount of money is gathered.
    If the massively rich individuals who have the great idea of giving aid, would give it out of their own pockets, the world’s problems would be solved.

  13. Rosita
    January 14, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    My father in law donated to the NSPCC. They then sold his details to other charities, and hes inundated with pleas for help. He’s a pensioner. What annoys me is that the NSPCC is a lobby charity, they spend a fortune going on TV and in magazines asking for money/making people aware of child abuse….but they dont take kids away from dangerous situations. What do they actually do? I worked in a centre for vulnerable young parents and they all had different and complex needs….not ONE had received help from any of these childrens charities.

    • baylix
      March 28, 2013 at 9:32 am


      • Richard Ellicott
        September 20, 2013 at 7:40 am

        I was going to call a pork pie but as YOU WROTE THAT IN CAPITALS it must be true

  14. Paul Taylor
    December 23, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    I have worked in statutory child protection for twelve years in many local authority social / children’s services departments. In all that time I have never been successful in engaging the support of the services for families that the NSPCC claim to have. If they do offer a service their eligibility criteria is very high, or they say that they can only undertake any work once the family situation has calmed down. Well that’s the whole reason why I need to use them. Moreover the NSPCC never undertake child protection work themselves. They have a hotline for calls from the public and then simply pass on the federal to thee local social services child protectiob team to deal with. I wouldn’t give them a penny of my money and they should be seen as simply a campaigning organisation and nothing more. What does get me is all the money they rake in from the public who think they are this wonderful organisation. And where does all this money actually go? It’s quite shameful and I think quite deceitful. They should be honest about what they actually do.

  15. Mark Lightbown
    December 23, 2012 at 1:19 am

    I have actual proof in a report involving my wife regarding a Chief Inspector of the NSPCC failing in his duty in the NSPCC missive on a huge brass plaque in their Headquarters (42 Curtain Road London)that their aim, since 1884 has remained unchanged “the protection of the child”.The said Chief Inspector visited the family home on several occassions in a seven to eight week period, the first of which he sat outside for two hours waiting for a parent to return home whilst one four year old, a twenty month old and a six year old were heard to be crying inside.On inspection when the mother returned home the children were found to be in such a state that the youngest was later described as a Belsen baby with limbs like broomsticks, the chief inspector believed the story of the mother that it was the first time she had left the children and her husband would kill her if he found out.The youngest child died seven weeks later and the mother was charged with neglect yet on several visits to the home the child was said to have looked ALRIGHT but was never physically taken to a doctor to be checked.We visited the headquarters trying to speak to someone about this case but found them to be most unhelpful.My wife has been told by a solicitor that she has a case of Vicarious Liability against the wonderful NSPCC but unlike the extremely Priviliged Lord McAlpine we dont have the money to pay for fancy legal teams to frighten large sums of money from large corporations (ie the NSPCC) anyone who has any idea how one could do this we would be most grateful for any ideas as she has lived with the guilt of being unable to save her brother for many many years.

    • Mrs Bakewell
      November 19, 2013 at 4:51 pm

      You could begin with the London NSPCC complaints process. Try to get any case notes under freedom of information so that you have checked out the records. However long it takes (remember Hillsborough/remeber Jimmy Savelle/Watergate…) keep hacking away until someone listens – and bring prayer into it. Remember the persistent widow who kept knocking until the door was opened. No one person or one organisation or department must be allowed to be above the law. Use the law to seek justice, now we may have to study the legal side and represent ourselves, but there is help out there. Look at the John Hemmings/fassit/family rights group websites.

  16. Linda James
    December 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Whilst this is a disturbing article, please don’t tar all charities with the same brush. BulliesOut helps hundreds of children and young people affected by bullying each year. We are nearly 7 years old and until August of this year, we were run and led entirely by volunteers. Thanks to 2 funders, we now have a part time volunteer manager for 1 year and a cyber bullying coordinator for 2 years. All other money is fundraised by our team and supporters. Our CEO is unpaid as are other members of our management team. Although many of our roles do need salaried staff to ensure their sustainability, it’s not easy to find funding – especially when up against much larger, well known charities!

    • Raymond Peytors -
      December 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm

      If what you say is true, I wish you and your charity well. With regard to the NSPCC, I am glad you find this article disturbing; you should do. Perhaps the NSPCC should give you some of their ill-gotten gains. That way, the money that they so successfully leech from others might do some real good, instead of paying for inflated executive salaries and utterly pointless, ineffective and over-priced advertising campaigns. – Editor

  17. Glyn
    October 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    It’s about time that Government legislation forced these “charities” to publish salary figures of their top executives. Peple on minimum wage would think twice about donating to a charity run by someone on six figure salaries.

  18. Charlie
    May 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Interesting article. A personal anecdote here.
    I used to work in the City of London. I was employed by a venerable stockbroking house in EC2, which is some of the most expensive property you can find anywhere.
    The London HQ of the NSPCC was our neighbour, so I suppose that speaks for itself.
    I can tell you that many of these big charities have multiple trading accounts in the City (I’ve seen some of them). They have brokers trading Equities, Futures and Forex (I’ve heard of others too).
    Factor in the tax breaks with the opaque accounting and you can rest assured they don’t need your money, they’ve got plenty.
    Funny thing is, with all these massive resources, the problems they are sworn to campaign against seem to get worse, not better. At least, that’s what we’re told. If these were real companies then the shareholders would’ve lynched the board long ago, as the organisation’s performance seems to be inversly proporionate to the resources deployed.
    Do not believe the big charities’ lies.

  19. Andrew Jackson
    March 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    The nspcc in my opinion is no different to the rest as they’ve ALL become self serving businesses, whereby only a fraction of the money raised through donations go to help the intended target/s, the rest going on salaries,expenses, internal fraud & lost through incompetence.
    I know for a fact, from recent experience with the BHF, where I offered for donation expensive items from my elderly mothers house clearance, that several items were stolen by the official collection staff & did not go through the books. The BHF response was DENIAL! Denial that the items had been given to them for donation. At the very least there is a major problem here with the lack of supervision, but I suspect that a blind eye is turned to this very common practice.
    Needless to say I’ll never donate anything again!

    • Brenda Taylor
      April 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      I had no idea how corrupt the N.S.P.C.C. WAS TILL MY FRIEND ME CRYING.sHE GIVES EVERY MONTH TO THE n.s.p.c.c. She said Brenda I give money I can ill afford to these people.I have a mental health problem.They have sent me a leaflet today in it saying PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS ABUSE CHILDREN.i HAVE bI-pOLAR AND i WROTE A SONG ABOUT SURVIVING CHILD ABUSE AND i WAS GOING TO UPLOAD IT TO ITUNES AND GIVE 100% TO THE nspcc…i wanted to help fund chiline….if and when i do the song….it will go to children in need not the rip off lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. Mississauga Dad
    March 5, 2012 at 4:42 am


    It looks like the NSPCC is up to tricks again. Note the following article in today’s Mail Online – and the details of the NSPCC’s involvement with the ‘study’.

    One in three teenage girls have been ‘sexually assaulted by their boyfriends’
    By Chris Greenwood

  21. Oscar
    May 30, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Having got stuck beside one of the well known self promoting child ‘protection’ experts on a plane back to the UK once I was astounded how (as they got drunker)this person bent my ear on how every single person without fail, working with children must be suspected. Which made me realise that that person was the most suspect of all as their life revolved around children.

    What disgusted me was the run down I got on the ‘conference’ they had just attended in a 5 star hotel in the Asia. for 5 nights and days. Not a penny from that trip was going to aid a child.

    • Raymond Peytors -
      May 30, 2011 at 2:19 pm

      I rest my case! Great comment, thank you. – Raymond Peytors

    • Brenda Taylor
      April 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      How disgusting!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.