That fifth outcome and the NSPCC
The anti-child poverty ('anti-child' being the operative term) consultation closes in two days, so I've blogged my responses to the questions here. It makes me feel better to tell them what I think and, well, they did ask. This will mark me out as a dissident, but I think we crossed that point a few years ago and this is no time to mince our words.
Anyway, if you're following the ECM developments, that consultation is an integral part of them because it refers directly to the fifth outcome: achieve economic wellbeing. The official measure of poverty is what dicates the definition of 'economic wellbeing' and this is currently set at a ridiculously high level so that they can push through policies like this, which amounts to nothing more than a work for welfare scheme.
Even if your current job and house is safe and you feel to be immune to this, the global financial situation in the next few years might change all that, so you perhaps think it's worth taking ten minutes of your time now to fill in the consultation questions and register your protest, just in case it makes a difference. I think the global big money was expecting the financial collapse and is ready to take full advantage of it with yet another power and wealth grab, if that's not underway already, and I at least wanted to say "I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned," because it seems that's all that we can do, at the moment.
Tech and I are co-writing a major piece about the NSPCC in the next few days. Please let me know, either in the comments here or by email if you have any links, thoughts or information that might help us. If you've also blogged about the NSPCC, we'd like to include a link to yours too.
Anyway, if you're following the ECM developments, that consultation is an integral part of them because it refers directly to the fifth outcome: achieve economic wellbeing. The official measure of poverty is what dicates the definition of 'economic wellbeing' and this is currently set at a ridiculously high level so that they can push through policies like this, which amounts to nothing more than a work for welfare scheme.
Even if your current job and house is safe and you feel to be immune to this, the global financial situation in the next few years might change all that, so you perhaps think it's worth taking ten minutes of your time now to fill in the consultation questions and register your protest, just in case it makes a difference. I think the global big money was expecting the financial collapse and is ready to take full advantage of it with yet another power and wealth grab, if that's not underway already, and I at least wanted to say "I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned," because it seems that's all that we can do, at the moment.
Tech and I are co-writing a major piece about the NSPCC in the next few days. Please let me know, either in the comments here or by email if you have any links, thoughts or information that might help us. If you've also blogged about the NSPCC, we'd like to include a link to yours too.
posted by Gill at 7:42 am
12 Comments:
Could someone please tell poverty.org that I do not want central heating? If I had a smallholding and hubby could walk I probably wouldn't have a car either. I would live a self-sufficient cashless as possible life! There they can stuff that in their review!
From their latest annual accounts, the NSPCC receive £14,222M from Statutory Bodies (ie the Tax Payer) and £113,835 from Voluntary contributions. On their web site they talk about their lobbying activities. My experience is that charities that receive substantial government (tax payer) funding tend only to lobby for things that the government favours. IMO as soon as you take government funding, you loose your independence.
In this, NSPCC is little different from most, but not all, UK charities in that most of them now take considerable amounts of income from the Tax Payer. Charities are no longer independent but are becoming part of the government machine. Welcome to your new all embracing state.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/aboutthenspcc/annualreport/financialreport_2008pdf_wdf60886.pdf
@Alfred the ordinary, and anyone else for that matter who has concerns about the questionable nature of such taxpayer-funded "charity", you can visit http://fakecharities.org/ for more info.
Hi Gill, I can find you the links later if you are interested but from nspcc research into prevalence of abuse they would expet 2 0r 3 children out of a school bus of 70 to be going home to serious violence/neglect.
extrapolate this percentage accross the approx 7.3 million on school roll and you get about 200 -300,000 going home to serious abuse. only about 32,000 children on at risk register each year and only about 60% of those are school age so sy about 20,000 school age on at risk register out of 200-300,000 experiencing serious abuse. i.e. at least 9 out of 10 cases of serious abuse in school children are missed. How can they say school offers protection in the form of detection?
If they say we need home visits for welfare reasons then so do school children cos there must be about 5 or 6 times as many abused school children missed as the whole of the home ed population of whom a small percentage will be abused.
The serious case review review (not done by nspcc but which they should be aware of) which takes place every 2 years now and last has data for 2003 - 2005 and identifies themes that are relevant did not once mention home education.
I know the figures can't directly extrapolate but there is no point in the nspcc undertaking such research if it can't be used to draw conclusions from and even if it slightly exaggerates the amount of abuse amongst school children the figures are still huge.
Don't know if this is any use but ill sen links and quotes if it is.
Jo
Well I was browsing their library and am absolutely amazed by how extensive it is, I must admit that I am awestruck that out of the wealth of subject matter they picked a subject on which they have so little material.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/Applications/InformCA/ListItems.asp?ArchiveDate=27/02/2009
But then again this third sector funding where the gov throws billions in the pot and charities provide a service to claim a chunk... well .. I mean to any logical soul that is just gonna ring bells very loudly...
Here is a example of the worthy causes that serve the public and qualify for third sector handouts
http://www.theplace2be.org.uk/
Just for fun I have also mailed you a rather spiffing pdf
All this may seem irrelevant to home ed but I think that it is actually the cause of the parent bashing culture .
ie charities screech ''look parents are a risk we can do the job better'' and hey presto their coffers are overflowing.
Link to Third Sector for the unaware
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/
Thank you Renegade Parent and Elaine for those links. Eye opening.
Yes, thanks all. We've received so much information both here and by email that we're now thinking it's going to have to be a three-post series (at least!) rather than a one-off. Message to NSPCC: this innocent minority group bites BACK.
Elaine, could you elaborate a bit more on what you think is wrong with charities like The Place 2Be?
I had a look round their website and they seem to be doing something quite useful for the kids they are working with.
Not sure why you think we should object to this?
I can assure you Danni I have no objection to them whatsoever, I used them as an example of third sector funding and if I was not to assume that some third sector charities were acting in the public interest then I would be emigrating , not sitting here trying to prevent the erosion of human rights and stigmatising of families.
Sorry, Elaine. I misunderstood your earlier comment. Thanks for clearing that up
Jo - a belated 'yes please' to those links and quotes!
Post a Comment
<< Home