National Association for the Promotion of Catastrophic Childcare

At least 250,000 children should be classed as victims of domestic abuse under government reforms due this month, says the NSPCC.

The charity says the Government’s current legal definition of domestic abuse fails to recognise the mental, emotional and social damage that children can suffer from domestic abuse in the family.

It says education department figures show domestic violence was a factor in the 246,720 cases last year where children were assessed to be in need of protection yet they had no legal guarantee that action would be taken because they were not classed as victims.

The NSPCC says provision is patchy with children in some areas not being treated for mental ill health or behaviour…

The activity of the NSPCC will lead to a quarter of a million more children being abused. They’re thus in the business of promoting child abuse, no? And yes, of course, they are. They’re a bureaucracy aiming to say alive, therefore their problem must be larger so that their bureaucracy is larger and safer. They thus definitively promote in the sense of changing definitions to create more abuse….

10 thoughts on “National Association for the Promotion of Catastrophic Childcare”

  1. Why not compare statistics for “ abuse in the family” with “abuse while in care of the state”, to ascertain whether children do better if removed?

  2. NSPCC are Marxist-feminist scum in the business of demonising men. They need to be a banned organisation yesterday with Police and Charity commission crawling up their backsides. But then so do the Police ( Common Purpose) and the CC ( SCS and gen leftist infilitration).

  3. Ljh, because if children are removed from an environment with a 100% risk of abuse to one with even a 95% risk of abuse, that is an improvement. On the abuse metric at least.

    What we need to know is whether the abuse risk threshold for removal is at least higher than the abuse risk in care.

  4. BiG: do you really trust Social Workers who on the whole are rather dim SJWs who need to stick with the narrative for promotion where they do not actually have to interact with problem families, and secret unaccountable courts where decisions cannot be scrutinised or ridiculed to be objective? Plenty of anecdotes escape to suggest otherwise.

  5. I bet they were mustard over the Asian grooming gangs though, years before everyone else was. I’m sure they were. Weren’t they? Oh.

    And remember this was the organisation that ran a poster campaign slyly implying that child abuse was by the father, neglecting to mention the vastly bigger chance of being abused by mummy’s latest boyfriend.

    Hostility to the nuclear family and concern for child welfare – choose one.

  6. @Rob

    Anti-violence campaigners are very hot on the statistic that the person most likely to murder a woman is her husband/partner.

    Less hot on the statistic that if you are under 8 the person most likely to kill you is your mother. (Well unless you live in some war torn part of Africa where it’s likely to be some Khat crazed gun totting 6 year old).

  7. Campaigners are out for themselves.

    ‘They’re thus in the business of promoting child abuse, no?’

    No, they are in the business of promoting themselves.

    Note that campaigners are almost always third parties. The universal response to campaigners should be, “Who the fvck are you? Why is this any of your fvcking business?”

  8. I used to go from door to door with a hollow blue plastic egg, relying on nothing but my eyelashes, to collect money. There was no salary. Not complaining about that, but the professionalisation of it stinks.

Leave a Reply

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