The Truth About IPP Sentences

NSPCC maintain abuse hysteria as donations fall

Is the NSPCC just a big con trick?

Is the NSPCC just dishonest?

After cashing in on increased claims of ‘historic’ abuse, many resulting from the publicity surrounding Jimmy Savile and others, the NSPCC is now trying to scare everyone over ‘present day abuse’; the decision of the prime minister not to support the automatic blocking of Internet porn sites has also come under fire from what appears to be a totally dishonest organisation that claims to protect children.

Indeed, the NSPCC has gone from being a once genuine organisation to one that now seems interested only in profit and its own survival.

Having tried to convince us all that hundreds of British children are abused every day and that there is likely to be a paedophile on every street and in every home, the NSPCC is now rattling its collection tin even louder; principally because the public are sick to death of reading about abuse and hearing from the multitude of charities who make money out of supposedly supporting ‘brave’ victims.

These ‘victims’ by the way are in fact “complainants”; nothing more, nothing less.

Real victims are people who have been subjected to proven violence, abuse or other suffering; not individuals who simply make allegations.

The difference is important and usually ignored by the authorities and the organisations that support the mass hysteria pumped out by the NSPCC and other charities. is fed up to the back teeth with the lies put out by the NSPCC ever more frequently in an attempt to get more money. Lies that most commentators are afraid to stand up against and lies which insidiously have worked their way into the British psyche to such an extent that most people are no longer even prepared to examine the truth.

Here are just a few examples of the kind of lie and exaggeration put out by the money-grabbing NSPCC and which are accepted by weak and pathetic MPs and law makers, seemingly without question:

  • Last November, the NSPCC claimed that one in four babies in Britain were “at high risk” of being abused.  No concrete proof of this was ever offered. As a result, the corporately run charity was accused of gimmickry for supporting a campaign to get Facebook users to change their profile pictures to those of cartoon characters to raise awareness – or more likely to raise money.
  • In 2010 the NSPCC released a totally staged video warning music teachers not to touch their students while demonstrating how to play their instruments properly – in case their actions be interpreted as being “inappropriate”.  Even the sanctimonious education secretary Michael Gove suggested that the video was “…playing to a culture of fear among both adults and children” and “sending out completely the wrong message.
  • In 2009 the Advertising Standards Authority banned an NSPCC ad campaign which claimed that one in every six children are sexually abused.  This claim was based on very questionable, out of date figures which were collated as part of an equally doubtful piece of ‘research’. The ASA noted that the presentation of the figures would lead people to infer that the physical abuse of children was far more prevalent than it actually was; presentation that the NSPCC often relies on for its multi-million pound income.
  • The above criticism was made only two years after the ASA had already censured the charity for using ‘completely made-up’ stories of child abuse in order to solicit donations in a hard-hitting campaign that “…was liable to cause recipients undue fear and distress.

In fact, the whole modern history of the NSPCC – since Tony Blair actually – is littered with lies, untruths and exaggerations that have been criticised by official watchdogs.

A report by New Philanthropy Capital which was covered by the Guardian newspaper in 2007 concluded that despite spending £250 million in its ‘Full Stop’ campaign, the NSPCC had been singularly ineffective in making any significant difference to the abuse of any children.  It also noted the NSPCC’s addiction to high-profile PR campaigns, effectively drawing public attention to child abuse through exaggeration and less than accurate research.

The report said the campaign was something that “…had very little bearing on whether a substance-abusing parent neglects their child behind closed doors, or whether a sexual offender chooses to abuse a child when they have the opportunity to do so in secret.”

The NSPCC has dramatic form when it come to telling lies.

In 1990, at the height of the so-called “Satanic Ritual Abuse” (SRA) hysteria, in a typically cynical attempt to justify its own privileged position, the NSPCC further fuelled the panic with a report that claimed that SRA was widespread in Britain.

The NSPCC claimed that up and down the country, groups of adults were engaged in the systematic production of child pornography.

In fact, no evidence demonstrating the truth of any such allegations was ever produced by the NSPCC or anyone else; even the police could find no evidence but nevertheless, families were torn apart, reputations irrevocably ruined and the doctor leading the charge was entirely discredited, only to receive an award from the charity at a later date!

Whenever these exposed lies and untruths, exaggerations and dishonest practices have been put to the NSPCC, the organisation has simply ignored them all.

So, asks, if the NSPCC is such a bunch of money-grabbing, over-paid charlatans, why are they still allowed to have such influence over government policy and allowed to tell lies that are conveniently ignored by those in authority when exposed as such?

The answers are simple, if rather depressing:

  • The NSPCC is the only charity with statutory powers of investigation and referral. This means that the charity is 100% an arm of the government of the day and as such, is allowed to continue its dishonest practices with impunity.
  • Its activities and falsely secured respectability mean that the government has a ‘fall guy’ when a policy goes horribly wrong. Ministers just blame the NSPCC advice and its alleged ‘research’ and claim the government was acting in good faith.
  • The royal family and celebrities have strong funding connections with the NSPCC. They give it an air of further respectability and surround it with a protected status that most will not even dare to criticise.

The fact is that today, most people are afraid to criticise anything to do with child protection for fear of themselves being branded as a ‘paedo lover’. It is therefore even less likely that anyone with any authority – moral or otherwise – is ever going to be prepared to criticise the very wealthy flagship organisation leading Britain’s massive ‘child protection industry’.

Even the church and religious groups are too frightened to speak out against the fear generated by the NSPCC and other charities,

Despite the lies, despite the dishonesty that is there for all to see, politicians and the media insist on pandering to these guilt-dispensing organisations that claim to be protecting children with our money but are in reality paying their own management huge salaries whilst causing moral panic amongst ordinary people based on false evidence.

In its latest whinge over Cameron’s refusal to back the automatic blocking of porn sites by ISPs, the charity’s response was given by the NSPCC’s ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’.

We didn’t even bother to remember his name but does ask is why an organisation that alleges to be protecting children should even have a ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’ together with a whole raft of other well paid ‘executives’, a corporate management structure that any profit-making business would be proud of and a huge office building to go with it.

The NSPCC is supposed to be a charity that protects children, not a multi-national corporation or a sub –division of the police and probation services. Donations and government grants are supposed to benefit real children; not go to academics, overpaid managers and pay for £250 million TV advertising campaigns that don’t make a difference to anyone.

Donations are not given for the provision of bloated salaries and expensive office blocks, not for running sex offender programmes that should be run by the probation service and which may or may not work and certainly not for the entertainment of politicians, policemen or corporate chiefs.

Just how long will it be before the British public wake up to the fact that they are being conned and frightened on a regular basis by this flabby, overweight, false, money-sucking bunch of liars?

The NSPCC are not alone either; there are plenty of other dishonest, so called ‘charities’ after your money as well. has a simple solution: Don’t give in to their moral blackmail or false claims and next time they spend millions of pounds asking you for £4 a month, keep your money in your pocket or spend it on your own kids.

Government is supposed to protect children, not corporate money machines that rely on guilt and panic to spread untrue facts in the hope that gullible, well-meaning people will offer up their hard earned cash.

It’s about time the NSPCC was recognised for what it really is and closed down – and the sooner the better.

** Editor’s note: If the NSPCC would care to respond to this article, they are welcome to do so in the comments area below. If the NSPCC feel unable to respond, we invite readers to draw their own conclusions as to why they are reluctant to do so. **

(Discuss this further by joining our Members Forum)

Tags: , ,

22 Responses to NSPCC maintain abuse hysteria as donations fall

  1. pete
    January 27, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    As I think I might be included in the “angry trolling” Solomon refers to, I think I might need to respond to his comment, even though I think I simply stated a strongly-expressed viewpoint. Perhaps that’s what trolling means these days: if you agree with the dominant narrative, you’re a decent fellow; if you disagree, you’re a troll. Once upon a time, disagreement and challenges to dominant assumptions were called academic and intellectual freedom. What progress we have made.

    It’s somewhat ironic, given the main thrust of Raymond Peytors’ argument, that someone purporting to be defending the NSPCC’s honour should react to his views by calling for the article to be banned and replaced, presumably with a more flattering slant on this “charity”. Banning things you disagree with is something the NSPCC – and the child abuse industry more generally – is rather fond of, but whether such censorship and coercion results in more enlightened debate and saner public policy is at least open to question.

    Whether data comes from NSPCC phone lines or from its own dodgy advocacy research, it seems to me that the properly scientific attitude to adopt is one of profound scepticism: prove it. Prove your methodology is sound. Prove you have sampled properly so that you don’t produce skewed, unreliable and misleading results. Prove that your research question is designed to further knowledge, not to promote and extend existing, moralistic policy; policy-led research, which the NSPCC is highly adept at, should more properly be called propaganda. “Can you describe how you felt about your earliest sexual experiences?” is a rather different question to “How many times were you sexually abused as a child?” The NSPCC, I fear, would ban the former but happily disseminate the latter.

    Is disagreeing with the compulsive scaremongering of a powerful, unelected, state-backed “charity” (with highly punitive statutory powers) “inflammatory”, or does sanity and reason depend on the occasional David who takes a well-aimed shot at a lumbering Goliath?

    Solomon may be a survivor of child abuse, but this immediately begs the question of what we mean by ‘abuse’? Using a few mates as a yardstick to measure the prevalence of ‘abuse’ in society might be good NSPCC propaganda, but it’s totally inadmissible as science. The NSPCC has played an influential role in extending the definition of ‘abuse’ to absurd degrees of elasticity. I don’t wish to diminish any suffering endured by Solomon when he was a child. But I think finding out that a few of your buddies had similar experiences is a most unreliable method of generating accurate statistics.

    Here’s something you won’t find the NSPCC supporting, let alone even acknowledging (on the contrary, it’ll do everything it can to suppress such testimony): unlike Solomon, I wasn’t abused as a minor but I did have sex and I enjoyed it. All of it. And I object passionately to neurotic prigs who work for powerful charities presuming that they have some delusionally omniscient entitlement to impose their own definitions on my experience.

    Brutishly redescribing mutually joyous and pleasurable intimacies as life-blighting abuse may be good for fundraising, but its crap science and it’s intrinsically dishonest. It’s neurotic moralism: a fanatical moralism which insists that I was “abused” when I was simply pleasured, which pre-emptively dismisses my testimony as an effect of brainwashing by my “abusers” (who were mostly the same age as me, although some were a little older). Any psychoanalyst who routinely imposed such coercive and misleading meanings on a patient’s narrative would be struck off.

    Had my youthful escapades been discovered by the NSPCC, instead of having a treasury of happy and cherished memories of generous, thrilling, mutual intimacy, I would almost certainly have been forced to choose between two equally evil and fallacious alternatives: confess to being abused by friends who you love (and grass them up to the authorities so that their lives can be destroyed), or be accused by us as an abuser, a child who sexually harms other children (and have your life destroyed instead).

    This is the prevention of cruelty to children? I think not; it’s the most appalling form of cruelty, the use of state power to force unwarranted meanings on others on the basis of sexual hysteria (Freud, rightly, considered the violent swerving away from erotic pleasure as inherently hysterical).

    The current madness about “historic abuse” is no victory for enlightenment and sanity, although I doubt if we will see any objections to its ugly, accusatory paranoia from the NSPCC. When Freud began articulating his brilliant concept of “nachträglichkeit”, he couldn’t have imagined that it would become a massive ideological phenomenon in the twenty-first century, with its hysterical victimology and punitive moralism. What Freud modestly described as “afterwardsness” or “deferred action” was actually a ground-breaking discovery about the making of meaning amongst human beings that still has much to teach us.

    The meaning of an experience, Freud discovered, rarely resides in the events as they happened; it is retroactively imposed by the dominant ideological meanings of the present. What might have been simply puzzling, or simply pleasurable, at the time of its occurrence, becomes redescribed by this retroactive mechanism as “abuse” and “torture”. This is judging the past by the (mad) criteria of the present day, with its abusively moralistic sexual ideology – an ideology which may appear timeless and unchallengeable but was in fact actively made and can be unmade.

    When the NSPCC can value and endorse my testimony as a minor instead of traducing it and falsifying it, when it refrains from imposing rigid and misleading meanings on all testimonies which fail to conform to its victimological ideology, when it can acknowledge that the category of “sexually silenced children” includes those who had positive and good experiences as well those who didn’t, I may become more benevolently disposed to it. Until then, I prefer scepticism, or “trolling” as Solomon might put it.

    • Ptt
      January 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm

      A superb analysis of a rather pathetic (and patronising) argument put forward by the previous poster. Well done pete!

  2. Solomon
    January 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Its interesting to note that the author takes offence to figures which have been pulled from NSPCC’s phone lines for years yet he offers no evidence to the contrary except for the opinions of this website.

    His whole argument rests on the fact that NSPCC is corrupt and wasting money yet he doesn’t mention any fact finding which could prove this statement.

    If your going to write inflammatory articles it would be best to research and set out your finding properly.

    I’m a survivor of child abuse and in my current circle of friends 25% of them have also been abused and that’s around 1 in 4 so I have life evidence for the figures.

    The only true statement in this entire article is that there is a difference between statements made by children and those which have been proven however his entire article is exactly the same as it has no proof or evidence either, in fact its much worse as the kids which are telling the truth really were abused where as the writer can’t even be sure it any of this is true as its just a point of view and not a genuine experience.

    The best thing that can happen to this article would be to remove it, research and then re write it. I’d be happy to help, I’m also dubious about some charities however I’m willing to do the journalistic work to actually find out more.

    Most of the replies appear to angry trolling which due to the quality of the article makes complete sense. Hopefully the author and others can see that just having an opinion doesn’t a journalist make, keep it on your facebook page please until its made better.

  3. Marianne Haslev Skanland
    December 2, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Absolutely right, Raymond Peytors. It is a relief to read what you say. The scourge of false child “protection” spreads and intensifies in every country when they start producing more social workers and clinical psychologists, and look to other countries and copy what they do. The horrors produced by Scandinavian child protection destroys thousands of families. Norway has started agitating abroad too: they now “teach” Estonia “how to do it” and are active through the Norwegian Seamen’s churches in Thailand and in Norwegian communities especially in Spain.
    A few of us have been speaking up about this for years. Perhaps you might find something of interest here:
    “Section for English speakers”
    I also publish about child “protection” on my own website:

    It is important to get this kind of information across the borders to other countries. Only if people wake up to the non-local character of the quackery and parasitic money-making underlying it all, may our societies eventually be able to stop it, I think.

    Marianne Haslev Skånland
    Oslo, Norway

  4. Tina Willis
    January 14, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    ” Sir Jimmy Savile, 1926 – 2011.

    MAY have aBused some – SURELY aMused MILLIONS.

    Prime suspect in UK Police/Media/Charities, ‘Joint Operation WITCH HUNT.’

    Operational-Judicial Methods & Facts:

    NO Right Of Reply
    NO Hard Evidence
    NO Firm Proofs
    NO Cross-Examinations
    NO Trial
    PROVEN Vast Corrupt Compensation-Culture

    Verdict GUILTY On All Counts!

    VICTIMS: 21st Century UK Justice & Journalism – Both Serial Gang-Raped By MONSTERS ! “

  5. Tina Willis
    January 13, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Criminally ignored for decades ongoing by the entire Sex-Obsessed phoney Anglophone UK/US/CA/OZ/NZ/SA/IE/bent-media, authorities, and charities.

    Is that leading agencies (US Committee To Prevent Child Abuse, 1998; UNICEF, 2007; York University, 2009) have all shown that a VAST 92% of Serious Child Abuses are NON-Sex Serious Child Abuses.

    Criminally ignored by the aforesaid Sex-Obsessed phoney Anglophone for sensation/greed/careers/ratings/profit and vast compensation culture by a Mass Deception Child Protection-RACKET. A ‘New Patriotism’ last-resort of scoundrels. NOT for TRUE Child Protection from 92% NON-Sex Serious Child Abuses.

    The same phoney-Anglophone PERVersely posing as ‘Best’, is in fact shamed ‘Worst In The West For Child Wellbeing’ by the aformentioned leading agencies. While coincidentlly with no Murdochized, Sex-Filled so called ‘Family Friendly’ hypocrite bent-media, mainland modern-EU is rightly named ‘World Best For Child Wellbeing’ – it’s NO COINCIDENCE !

    It’s long overdue for the Sex-Obsessed phoney Anglophone bent-media authorites, and charities to be severely prosecuted including retrospectively – for their systematic criminal-neglect of Serious Child Abuses – 92% NON-Sex Serious Child Abuses.

    Anglophone children now daily abused by no natural freedom, are made dangerously obsese/abused, irrationally scared/abused where 99% least at-risk, from strangers, and left unaware/abused where most at-risk 92% NON-Sexually, from those they know well.

    Rightly said, if years late (and now ignored), by leading charity ‘Kidscape’ post-the lost Maddie tragedy, “Children are more likeley to be struck by lightning, than attacked by a stranger.”

  6. Claire
    December 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Any organisation who is exposing the abuse of children cannot be all bad. The official figures of children being abused in the UK has been around 1 in 5 for over 20 years, with the real figures being around 1 in 3. For too long the problem of abuse has been swept under the carpet, people don’t want to admit the truth about it.

    There are many people of all ages living with the scars of abuse in this country who have never reported it.

    Carry on scaring people NSPCC maybe more will come forward because of your adverts and campaigns, lets hope so because it is sure needed.

    If anyone wants to cry me down for my view, go ahead, maybe you are one of the lucky 2 out of 3 who were not abused, just remember, because it didn’t happen to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, I can assure you it does.

    • Incredulous
      December 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Really Claire. is that what you truly believe? the massively self serving public and child protection agencies in this country are running amock right now. what ‘official’ figures are you referring to? the ones generated by such agencies that cannot or have ever been substantiated.
      If true the this country and society is in real trouble. No other European country has this level of apparent abuse and no other, equally professional, research supports it. In fact most abuse happens in familial relationships – the whole stranger danger, monsters on every street corner is a myth. The NSPCC is not a charity – its a money making, self sustaining corporation, living on mythological fear instilled by misguided MPs living on the research of wannabes. The same MPs that instilled the powers onto the Probation Office, Public Protection Units, Social Services and Police to avoid having to be pulled up if that decision went wrong. What charity would dare to spend the amount the NSPCC do on advertising nonsensical facts? why not divert that money to the 1 in 3 you say that need it.

      I’m sorry if you are one of the affected, and I will never deny that it happens. But the current state of hysteria means that families are being destroyed, children losing parents and the love that they always had. Not from being abused but simply because one parent is accused of something and the willingness of the frankly fascist organisations such as Social Services. They can cause more misery than they possibly can stop. In recent years this has become even worse.

      Sorry Claire – you are misguided and simply plainly wrong if you think that this country has any regard to protection. We dont need to be protected from the monsters – we need to be protected from the state itself and those politicians who constantly operate a fire and forget policy with regards to implementing new polices and handing the powers to groups who are ill educated enough to operate them sufficiently, while on their way to the next post.

    • Jenny Richards
      January 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      Claire, I really do have to agree with Incredulous. How on earth could anyone possibly know that 1 in 3 children are abused? If it were true, that would mean EVERY family has at least 1 child being abused, and therefore EVERY father or uncle is a paedophile! This figure is just made up by organisations like the NSPCC, and by feminists.

    • JamesW
      January 13, 2013 at 8:29 pm

      Claire the real proof of the dismal failure of the NSPCC is in their own exagerated claims : they ahve had decades of power and hundreds of millions of pounds and what have they achieved ?. Nothing.

      All those tens of millions of pounds could have gone to assist children who really are in need but it goes on salaries and to advertising agencies.

      And there is something decidedly creepy about that Mark Williams-Thomas who seems absolutely obsessed with child abuse. On his Twitter feed he sends messages hour after hour day after day and month in month out about Savile and abuse. He seems very creepy.

  7. pete
    December 17, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    Yet again, Raymond Peytors is to be congratulated for his fearless and principled opposition to received wisdom, and especially for tackling this particular organisation. Beneath its increasingly preposterous masquerade as a “caring charity,” it spews an endless torrent of corrosive misanthropy through its near-psychotic obsession with paedophilia.

    And it doesn’t take kindly to any intelligent scepticism toward its increasingly swivel-eyed claims, preferring howls of execration and accusations of baleful heresy to considered debate and the construction of saner, less fanatically destructive child protection policies. It’s a great pity to see one of the respondents to this courageous article resorting to similar methods, hinting that those who object to being fed a constant stream of disinformation, exaggeration and lies have “skeletons in the cupboard”: impugning the integrity of those who oppose your view might work in the shabby propaganda wars the NSPCC has acquired much nefarious expertise in, but it has no place in enlightened and rational debate.

    A bloated and self-promoting propaganda machine, the NSPCC (in collusion with its equally opportunist State accomplices) has slyly and deviously extended the meaning of abuse to include ordinary aspects of parenting, and certainly any expression of adolescent sexuality, no matter how consensual or harmless this might in reality be. For the NSPCC, a well-deserved slap on the wrist is a crime against humanity, while a mutual fondle behind the bike sheds is a sexual assault.

    How have we come to this? How can the cause of compassion be advanced when it is so deeply contaminated with malignant vengefulness, with hooligan-rousing sadism? How can it possibly “protect” children to criminalise them as sex offenders simply for taking thoughtless snaps of their girlfriends’ or boyfriends’ nudity, especially when they’re above the age of consent and can have sex with each other anyway?

    More than a century ago, Freud calmly and elegantly described how those who are most hysterically repressive about sex are also the most obsessed with it. They see terrifying and rapacious manifestations of it everywhere, apart from in their own malignantly neurotic hearts. Repression always distorts what it tries to eradicate, converting innocent erotic pleasures (such as teens “sexting” or mutually sharing harmless erotic pleasures with one another) into terrifying fantasies of predation, coercion and assault.

    The only beneficiaries of this ugly and finger-pointing madness – of the accelerated destruction of the relationship of care and authority adults have cultivated over many centuries toward the young – are the paranoid prelates of the child protection industry, their faces permanently twisted into scowls of disgust and synthetic horror.

    It should come as no surprise that majoritarian public opinion – another term for ideologically manipulated fear and prejudice – would prefer an “overdose” of protection to “none at all”, which is of course an absurd dichotomy that no one subscribes to. There are few, if any, who went through the English educational system during the 60s who could have escaped – either by witnessing or directly experiencing – the face of disciplinary power as it was then institutionalised: violent, slightly mad and deliberately humiliating. But to retrospectively redescribe this in terms of our contemporary obsession with “abuse” is to falsify it – in a tough, working class school, I had plenty of slightly unhinged teachers, male and female, to fear, but also many who I felt inspired by (and even fancied, which of course schoolboys are now officially incapable of).

    The continued influence of the NSPCC and its allies in the UK’s appallingly punitive child protection establishment is an occasion for alarm and militant resistance, not gratitude and subservience. Anyone who can justify the draconian excess of their laws and paranoid propaganda with the mantra “But if it protects just one child” is worthy of contempt. We would do better to adopt the heroic and principled position of the Quaker minister Thomas Maule, who unreservedly condemned the murderous irrationalism of the original Puritans during the Salem Witch Trials in 1692. Knowing that he faced potentially lethal accusation for his dissent, he wrote:

    “It were better than one hundred Witches should live, than that one person be put to death for a witch, which is not a Witch.”

    We need to rediscover this enlightened and humane solidarity, telling the paranoid priests of child protection where to go. In the meantime, anyone with teenaged kids or grandchildren has occasion to be deeply afraid: the NSPCC, with its accusing fingers and its spurious “research”, is on standby to hunt down and destroy those who fail to conform to its straight-laced, petit-bourgeois, pseudo-Victorian moral agenda.

    Here is the conservative journalist thinker James Delingpole describing the NSPCC:

    “[I]f you’ve never smacked a child, that doesn’t let you off the hook. … because our mission at the NSPCC is to create a society where children are ‘loved, respected and valued’. And I’ll bet you haven’t always done that have you? Bet when you’ve had a football booted through your front window, or they’ve dragged a key down the side of your car, … or they’ve let their pit bull terrier swallow your cat; I’ll bet you weren’t willing to understand their needs and appreciate that what they most need is love and tolerance, not condemnation.”

    Obviously a man with skeletons in his cupboard.

  8. suetiggers
    December 16, 2012 at 4:14 am

    It’s sad to know that Great Britain has an organization like this one. I guess the NSPCC learned from the “colonies” because nobody has done this hysteria using fear re. children like FOX in the U.S. Wonder if Rupert Murdock has a hand in the NSPCC?
    My son, who never had more than a traffic ticket at age 35 was falsely accused of child sexual abuse. The story is horrific because the child of 8 was far more streetwise than my mentally ill, very naive son. She wanted to get my son away from her older sister who was using him for money. (She was a drug addict/prostitute). The child grew up and finally told the truth. She was encouraged to lie, she said but her grandmother and another woman who didn’t like my son’s looks. Even though this girl gave a strong deposition, my son is STILL on the registry and lives everyday looking over his shoulder. We worry all the time about him. He was a lamb among wolves when this happened…the neighborhood, aptly called “Pigtown” full of drugs and prostitutes saw a mark when Ken moved there and he saw only friendly, nice people. There’s some heroes to the story but Ken was one of many victims I now know who were falsely accused in the frenzy created by unscrupulous politicians, drama media and overly zealous prosecutors out to make a name for themselves with what many called “easy win” cases. My son may never get over this but at least he is not in prison where he did go for 2 1/2 years for being days late in registering years ago. I write to two men in Arizona and Oklahoma who, after reading about their cases, I’m convinced they were railroaded…and I have no doubt there are many more. I worked in child abuse many years ago and know there are real true cases of abuse but these laws in the U.S. and the registry are terrible…about as bad as bad can be. Read Dr.Richard Wright’s book
    “Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions”
    If you care about justice and want to know more,go to:

    • Raymond Peytors -
      December 16, 2012 at 12:37 pm

      Editor’s Note:- Although this correspondent is from the USA, the insights given are a clear warning as to what may happen in the UK as this country seems to be developing its sex offender policies completely in line with the US except where prohibited from doing so by international treaty obligations such as the ECHR. The panic and hysteria so prevalent in the US is now saturating the UK. – Editor

      • James
        December 17, 2012 at 1:29 pm

        I was in Approved schools during the late 60’s. I will never prove what was was I saw going on and although I generally agree with your comments, lack of evidence and/or proof does not mean that it didn’t happen.

        What was going on then is only just beginning to emerge and that is simply because young people were not believed. Yes, I’m quite sure the NSPCC is now simply a racket profiteering organisation -but would you like to live in a world where there was absolutely no monitoring of what some adults get up to?

        Nothing is black and white. I’d rather have an overdose of protection than none at all. It does appear that the vast majority in favour of getting rid of protection and monitoring agencies are those people who themselves have skeletons in the cupboard and is not supported by the vast public majority.

        • JamesW
          January 13, 2013 at 8:37 pm

          think of those hundreds of millions of pounds that could be used to keep you and other kids out of ‘approved’ schools.

          The NSPCC is a disgrace and a hypocritical racket.

  9. William
    December 15, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    The NSPCC is not a charity, but an insidious Pressure Group, that has the ear of the Government and virtually writes any Parliamentary Legislation, concerning children, on behalf of the Government. It is the main body responsible for creating this Seventeenth Century type witch hunt over paedophilia and as a result imprisoning many innocent people and destroying lives. Matthew Hopkins would be proud of it. Whenever any of their begging letters arrive on my door step, they go straight in the bin. Oh! and by the way, I do give generously to other genuine charities.

  10. JK
    December 15, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Good piece about the elephant that’s been sat in the national room for far too long….

    The scale of child abuse in this country is vastly exaggerated by organisations with a vested interest in promoting hysteria. If any other government organisation (which the NSPCC unquestionably is) had driven policy on such insidiously exaggerated statistics over the last twenty years then there would be a public enquiry. But shout the slogan “think of the children” loud enough and you can escape any scrutiny, any questioning, any auditing and carry on spreading more and more pernicious self serving lies.

    If people are genuinely feeling charitable this Christmas…Rather than dipping into your pocket to salve your conscience with a fiver to this Corporation because you’ve watched a manipulative £5 million pound advertising campaign, try taking an hour out of your life to talk to a child, encourage a child, educate a child or just take him/her for a kickabout in the park..Oh! wait a minute?…You’ll need vetting by the NSPCC first…for a fee naturally.

  11. verity
    December 15, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    This organisation betrays every genuine and proven victim of abuse regardless of its nature with its mendacious contrived mis-information.

    As an adult survivor of horrific childhood abuse on a par with Victoria Climbie, Kyara Ishak, Peter Connolly, Charlene Salt, Maria Colwell et al whom the NSPCC failed to protect, I refuse to have anything to do with the organisation and will not donate to them.
    They offer absolutely no protection to children, they are only interested in their own self gain and ingrandesment.

    I wrote to the director of the NSPCC expressing my concerns in regard to some of their advertisements and the burgeoning problem of false allegations being made on the back of the advertisements.
    I eventually received a patronising letter back suggesting I get counselling for the abuse I suffered!
    No offer of support was forthcoming, not that it was needed as I sought help myself many years prior.

    Just goes to show how much empathy the NSPCC has for the genuinely abused.

    I hope a way is found sooner rather than later to expose these disingenuous charlatans for what they truly are.

    I also hope this will happen in the case of Childline.
    I still have a copy of the questionnaire I filled in and sent back to Ms Rantzen whilst she was a presenter on That’s Life.

    It was as a result of my and many others responding to her questionnaire that Childline was founded.
    At no time during my communications with Ms Rantzen did she allude to any common ground with me ie, her recently disclosed unsubstantiated allegation of being a victim of abuse herself.
    Unlike my recorded and substantiated experience of abuse.

  12. Jenny
    December 15, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Blood suckers feeding on people’s fear and ignorance.

    They won’t be happy until every man is locked up whist they get rich on the proceeds.

    Why does no one else speak out? This is the only major site that tells the truth.

  13. alana.
    December 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    A tick is a parasitic creature that burrows its head under the flesh and starts to suck until it is so full and bloated, it then drops to the floor rolling around like a bloated pigs bladder laughing hystericaly . Sounds much like the NSPCC of today.

  14. aremus
    December 15, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    It’s about time someone exposed this organisation for what it really is – a branch of the police, probation and social services. I thought I paid taxes for those services? Why should I want to donate to them as well?

    Thank you for speaking out when others are too afraid to do so.

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.