The NSPCC as an Evil Feminist Organization.

The NSPCC is the leading child protection organization in the UK.  It has a royal charter, and is the only child protection charity whose officers have some legal powers to intervene in specific instances of child abuse.  But its real importance lies in the areas of lobbying and campaigning.  It frequently runs major ‘awareness’ campaigns which figure prominently in both offline and online British media, usually involving either men being characterised as physically abusing both their wives and children, or else being demonised in straightforward anti-paedophile campaigns – the type that inform every parent in the country that their daughters are almost certain to be raped by a male predator the moment they go online behind their backs, and that the only way it can be prevented is by  making a donation right now.  The Royal Charter also mandates the NSPCC to campaign against bullying (more children in the UK commit suicide because of bullying than for any other reason), but that rarely seems to get a look in.  Teens driving other teens to suicide just isn’t sexy, I guess.

Many supporters of the men’s movement believe that some of the topics I discuss on this website are not men’s rights issues. I feel that they are because they affect chiefly men, and they do so because they derive from the lobbying of organisations that hate men – organisations such as the NSPCC.  If you are unsure that such organisations hate men, then please read to the end of this article. Once you have done that, please ask yourself whether the laws that these evil feminists create really only become men’s rights issues if they are applied in the courts differently to men and women.

This article kind of takes up where Angry Harry left off, in one of his essays last year.  In that piece, he described how a woman who had just taken up a senior role at the NSPCC, a woman by the name of Marriane Hester, was a committed feminist who had already published some ridiculous research that claimed that WOMEN were three times more likely than men to be arrested in cases of domestic violence!

In fact, as this article will illustrate, virtually ALL of the senior research staff listed on the NSPCC website  have a clear feminist background, and usually have a history of involvement in campaigns against ‘gendered violence’.

Marriane Hester – Professor of Child Sexual Exploitation, NSPCC

Marriane Hester was last year appointed the ludicrous role of NSPCC ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’.  She was already professor of ‘gender, violence, and international policy’ at the University of Bristol.  She appears to have earned her salary at that seat of learning by conducting numerous and essential comparitive studies into domestic violence, such as that between China and the UK.  According to the blurb on her Bristol academic homepage, she has also been involved for a long time with the UK Rape Crisis Movement.  But her most infamous contribution to human learning was the above mentioned study which claimed to show (in the words of the Guardian) :

While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10.

Lorraine Radford (NSPCC Head of Research)

 The first two of her chief research interests listed are ‘the impact of domestic violence upon children and on parenting, safe child contact arrangements’.  Lorraine was well placed to judge whether Marriane Hester was qualified to earn the salary that a prestigious role such as ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’ no doubt brings.  The two co-authored a book entitled ‘Mothering through Domestic Violence’, published in 2006.

Susana Corral – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Susana is the first of three senior research officers.  Her speciality appears to be in ‘intimate and dating violence’.  Prior to working for the NSPCC, she had apparently conducted research into the maltreatment of women.  Her bio also tells us that she completed her PHD in violence in dating relationships. 

Are you beginning to detect a pattern?

Alison Jobe – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

The first paragaph of Alison’s NSPCC blurb reads :

Alison’s research interests are in the areas of gender based violence; violence prevention; trafficking; immigration and asylum policy; social exclusion; and children and young people’s rights.

Wouldn’t you expect, on the profile page of a leading staff member of Britain’s official child protection charity, that ‘children and young people’s rights’ would be listed first, not AFTER ‘gender based violence’ and all the other crap?

Alison has apparently had 7 pieces of research published, 6 of which relate to trafficking, and only 1 of which focuses on the rights of young people.

Sarah Gorin – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Sarah Gorin has published a work looking at the impact of domestic violence upon children. but there doesn’t seem to be any obvious evidence of an overt feminist background or clear misandristic bias in her case.

Silvia Bovarnick – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Silvia’s research interests are listed as…I hardly need to tell you, do I? Gendered violence, trafficking..blah, blah, blah

Patricia Hynes – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Patricia earns her salary protecting British kiddies by studying : “forced migration; trafficking; refugee and asylum policy; social exclusion and inclusion; human rights; and the ethics of conducting research with migrant populations.”  I’m sure Sun readers will be pleased to know that their donations are going to such a worthy cause.

Patricia has worked with the women’s refugee movement and completed her PHD from crappy Middlesex  university by writing a billion words on the social exclusion of asylum seekers in the UK.

These are all the ‘senior researchers’, the rest seem to be ‘senior fellows’.  I won’t list them all, at least not now, but suffice to say they follow the same pattern.  I should mention one of them however, as he is only one of two men listed as a member of the NSPCC research team (out of 16).

Simon Lapierre –  NSPCC Visiting Academic (McGill University, Canada)

Simon’s research interests are in the field of violence against women and children, mothering and child protection.

Simon has conducted research on women’s experience of mothering in the context of domestic violence.

He has published a work entitled : “La persistance du blâme envers les mères chez les femmes victimes de violence conjugale“, which according to my ropey french, reads something like ‘the persistance of blaming mothers for the violence they suffer in domestic relationships’.  White knight Simon has also enriched human understanding by publishing work on problems of gender and identity in a multi-cultural framework.

Prelimanary conclusions

So there you have it.  There is no doubt that the NSPCC exists primarily as a feminist organisation and lobbying group. Five of their seven senior research staff are hardcore feminists whose main interests lie in domestic violence against women and/or trafficking.  These are the senior staff members of an organisation which recieves its Royal Charter on the basis that it will protect British children from abuse and neglect.  One of the two token male members of staff is a Canadian feminist whose main area of interest lies in domestic violence against women.  It appears that the NSPCC is a British ‘child protection’ organisation which awards research positions on the basis of strength of support for feminist political world views, and in fact, picks from candidates whose resumes demonstrate a primary research focus upon violence against women, and, to a sightly lesser extent, trafficking and asylum issues.  None of the seven senior research members of the NSPCC listed amongst their interests the problem of teenage bullying, something which by any objective measure, including their own (see below), is the biggest single problem tormenting the lives of British school children today.

The NSPCC is one of the most powerful social forces in Europe, let alone the UK.  It largely defines our understanding of the health and moral state of the British family, in particular the status of the father, and in more general terms, all of us as men.  Furthermore, the legislation that results from its questionable research and incessant lobbying, from Westminster to Brussels, reaches into the homes and lives of men and families across the continent.

And it is indisputably a hardcore feminist organisation that hates men.

I’ll be writing further pieces on the NSPCC and other supposed child protection charities over the next few months. I may also update this article with further information regarding the feminist backgrounds of the rest of its research staff.  In the meantime, you may want to look at Angry Harry’s ‘The Curse of the NSPCC’ collection of essays. 

NOTES 1 : The NSPCC have their own telephone hotline for children who feel that they are being abused, called ‘Childline’.  According the the NSPCC’s own statistics being bullied by other children is the number 1 reason both boys and girls ring Childline, followed by physical abuse and general family problems.  Logically, you would expect the NSPCC to therefore devote a great part of its campaigning to addressing the issue of bullying, followed by the other two concerns.  Instead, it appears to focus the great majority of its campaigning and lobbying towards ending child sexual abuse, primarily that involving teenage girls, which, despite what you read in the media, is not even in the top 3 concerns of British children.   Likewise, you would also expect the NSPCC to give the greatest weight, when selecting research staff, to those candidates who have some experience in the understanding and prevention of bullying.  In fact, not a single one of their senior research team lists the prevention of bullying as a research interest or goal.  On the other hand, as we have seen, if you have a PHD in migrant studies or domestic violence, you certainly appear to have a head start on the rest of the ‘child protection’ candidates.

NOTES 2 : The NSPCC’s website also gives the following interesting statistic – ‘while 37% of girls say their mother is the source of the physical abuse, 25% say their father is’.  Something which completely contradicts their frequent misandristic emotional televison appeals featuring bruised and battered tiny daughters cowering in fear from their physically abusive fathers.

 Also :

Even social workers can see through the NSPCC

Professor Marianne Hester – Professional Liar

If you know of any other articles attacking the NSPCC as a corrupt organisation, please leave the links below in a comment.

22 thoughts on “The NSPCC as an Evil Feminist Organization.”

  1. It would be good if you explained to the non-Brits what exactly this organisation is. Governmental or NGO?

    But from what I see, the main child protection agency is
    NOT interested in protecting children from bullying, violence, violent immigrants, etc

    Interested in protecting them from consensual sex (yes I know by definition they can not consent but most prefer consensual sex to forcible rape, even though feminists think it is the same)

    Interested in the rare occasions of trafficing
    Interested in violence against ADULT women
    not interested in violence against ADULT men

    Not interested in violence against children

    Sounds disgusting. Will the Sun reprint your article?

  2. I bet their focus is on sex and teenage girls, and not actual pedophilia, because their real agenda is to criminalize men’s ability to date peak attractiveness in the 15-23 year old age range well into his middle age. Women don’t have this ability because nature didn’t bless them with aging gracefully like it did for men.

    Feminists want to handicap this natural balance of attraction as it shifts away from women and in favor of men the older she gets. At the same time, they want to magnify womens’ desirability well into her middle age with frauds like make-up (which hides her wrinkles and flaws), social pressure on men to date older women (cougars) and to criminalize any judgment/criticism of her ability to dress provocatively (slutty) or controls on her sexual behavior while demanding tons of legal and social controls on his sexual behavior.

    I’m sure Welmer will post your articles over at the-spearhead. Give it a try and find out for yourself.

  3. Thanks Milo, I’m certainly going to ask Ferdinand if I can submit articles at the new Inmalafide.

  4. “femmes victimes de violence conjugale”

    Reads something like “female victims of marital violence”,I can’t make heads or tails of the rest of it because I can’t understand the sentence structure of French very well. Thanks for the heads up, by the way.

    You go to a lot of trouble to prove your point, personally, red flags go up for me any time I see a person researches all these obscure social issues that are really branches of Marxist activism like “gendered violence”. The fuck is “gendered violence”? Last time I checked, violence was an action and not an animal. How the fuck can violence be “gendered”?

    Answer: it’s a bullshit Humanities discipline full of brainwashed,ignorant,rich fools that have never actually lived with violence so they make shit up to sound authoritarian in order to cash in on a subject they know nothing about. You want to know about violence, I’ll tell you all about it. When I was a kid I was physically abused by every member of my family. Every single one. Male and female,old and young. I was beaten by at least one of them for something on a daily basis.

    In addition to that, people at school were always starting shit with me and attacking me, probably saw all the bruises and figured I was an easy target. I know all about violence, I’ve been shot at by members of my family, threatened with castration, drowned, choked with hands,cords and belts,suffocated,beaten with electrical cords, switches,belts, brooms, 2X4’s,baseball bats, axe handles, bricks, been stoned (not with drugs,unfortunately,with rocks),starved,forced to live on the street, stripped naked and abandoned in bad neighborhoods,cut with razor blades, had cigarette butts put out on me,glass bottles thrown at me,stomped on, dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and repeatedly stomped on and most of this shit happened before my 10th birthday. You know the children’s prayer, “If I die before I wake…etc.”? I used to pray that I would die before I woke. If I knew any hired killers I would have given them the pin numbers of any of my family members to kill me. The only reason I didn’t do it myself is because I knew if police investigators determined that I had committed suicide my family would have been laughing at me and calling me a pussy for killing myself. Violence for me was a fact of life,like soccer practice for other kids. I knew that after school I was gonna go home, mind my own business and then at some point I was going to be grabbed up and choked until I nearly passed out and then beaten into full unconsciousness. I wasn’t going to be treated for my injuries, I was gonna keep my mouth shut and be damn happy that it wasn’t worse,because nobody gave a tinker’s fuck if I was killed.

    None of that violence was “gendered”,I can assure you. I know more about violence than all of the wimminz studdeez professors in the world, but you don’t see me standing up for my victim badge and declaring myself a “senior researcher of getting your teeth kicked in”,in fact,I’ve never mentioned any of this before.

    The only aspect of the whole situation that I take pride in is that I know nothing can kill me. I’ll be 105 and my body will refuse to give up the ghost. I’m so fucking hardened from all that shit that if I wanted to die I’d have to put a pistol in my mouth and purposely direct a bullet into my brain, and even then, knowing my luck, I’d probably still survive as a vegetable or something.

    These cunts aren’t helping anybody with their bullshit. For people who go through the same things I did,there is no help. You either suffer abuse at home, or you get sexually molested by some sick pedophile fuck in their little state-sponsored pedo farms.The only consolation I’ll get is being able to piss on the graves of all the people who beat me,and I hope,the option of tormenting them for all eternity in hell when I finally catch up to them there.

  5. we’ve got them psyching men everywhere from the homefront to school to our workplaces my joy is that the cheapmen give in and they end up hating men who know what they rightly deserve. In nigeria they’ve got us choking and the men in authority are what you would call a complete sell-out , religion itself is just a seeming trap; WHO IS GOING TO DEFEND ADAM AND HIS GENDER?

  6. Not quite sure where to post this, but check out this link to an exhibition of ‘activists’ covering areas such as climate change etc.

    The two lovely sensitive women pictured have created a poster of a small girl slowly being hanged as an ice berg melts due to global warming (no doubt all caused by evil, selfish men).

    What a lovely poster. Of course, a poster devised by men featuring a 17 year old advertising bikinis would get you jailed just for looking at it because that would be encouraging baby rape.

  7. The lack of attention given to bullying by peers may be because the NSPCC is directly linked with Childline, who openly acknowledge that bullying is a primary reason for children calling, as you mention, so I don’t know why it bothers you so much that the NSPCC concern themselves much more with children at risk from adults.

  8. You don’t even begin to make any sense here. Childline openly acknowledge that bullying is the biggest problem facing children, and yet the official children’s protection society, linked directly to Childline, hardly bothers with the problem?

  9. I am at the moment engaged in a somewhat fruitless discussion with the NSPCC regarding anti-male bias.In September ,this year,their service manager in York announced a new initiative in York for mothers to “re-bond”with their children after suffering domestic physical abuse at the hands of…….yes you’ve guessed it.Their service manager Debra Radford stated in a newspaper called the York Press that children who were physically abused in the home were “usually” abused by their fathers or their mother’s male partners.I have been attempting to get Ms Radford to justify her comments.She appeared to know nothing of her own organisations research showing otherwise.After 8 weeks of prevarication where I did not receive ONE comment from her she referred my requests to her head office.They said they were responding to me rather than their service manager to free her up to carry on the more needy work of helping abused children. The rest of their letter contained bland statements like “the NSPCC always etc etc”.I have tonight sent them a simple question “are your service managers statements factually based” I am not holding my breath!

  10. It’s not only in this area that the NSPCC is a disgrace. In the dying days of the Labour government, the unlamented Ed Balls advanced legislation to effectively monitor Home Educating families as if they were all automatically at risk and needed government monitoring. Because you didn’t believe state education was wonderful, you were obviously a child abuser.

    The awful NSPCC weighed in, in a disgraceful fashion, being given unbelievable weight and quoted in the consultation document. Whatever you think of any good they might do, they know diddly squat about home education, and were pontificating as rent-a-quote toadies for the government. I’d not donate a bad penny to the blighters.

  11. I don’t think anyone here thinks the NSPCC does any good to anyone but themselves and their inflated salaries. It’s been exposed as a hotbed of radical feminism posing as a children’s protection charity. I hope AVoiceforMen has them in their sights.

  12. You are right about the NSPCC. I wrote to them some years ago asking why, as their own PUBLISHED FIGURES show that most child abuse is committed by women, do they always portray the villain in their adverts as being a man.
    You will find plenty of anti-feminist material on my website blog mentioned above. And if you want the REAL truth about domestic violence, and not the usual lies broadcast by the BBC, I can recommend the ManKind website at:

  13. “Name five good things the NSPCC has done since its establishment in 1884.”
    1. Supported legal equality for gay men.
    2. Supported legal equality for gay men.
    3. Supported legal equality for gay men.
    4. Supported legal equality for gay men.
    5. Supported legal equality for gay men.
    Well, supporting an age of consent of 16 for gay men is about the only good thing they’ve done in nearly 130 years!

  14. Oh Yeah? Paragraph 1 : “The NSPCC Caring Dads: Safer Children programme protects children through working with fathers who are violent to their partners”

    No further reading required.

  15. @proud (and MISINFORMED) or fraudulent supporter:

    Before you begin your attack, i think it best if you actually did some research into their current work and take the time to read any of their policy and strategy documents. Please see below for an example of their work which has helped hundreds of men reconnect with their families.

    I (we) have read everything in your link, plus everything else. Hence this topic and also hence your CORRECTED commentator’s alias…

    How pathetic – it’s TRANSPARENT.

    I do not expect you to reply, because by now you probably won’t be able to!


  16. I think the nspcc’s recent advertising campaign at xmas is more than telling. It included a picture of a little boy saying ‘all i want for xmas is for daddy to stop hitting me’! It was extremely successful as it got loads of publicity including those father pressure groups who could not avoid but play right into the nspcc’s corporate greedy hands. I have been an nspcc volunteer and supporter for 15 years and will leave shortly. nspcc exploit their paid staff and their volunteers and they exploit the vulnerable people who contact their helpline services such as the Adult Helpline which is often featured in the media since Jimmy Savile and Yewtree. Nspcc also exploit their power and resources to hijack small charitable services e.g Napac which is run by survivors and volunteers to support adult survivors of child abuse. nspcc run this service out of hours but will soon be running the service 24/7 if the price is right. callers who call to report abuse be it current or historical child abuse and who are victims themselves or those that just call for advice and support are hijacked by the so called nspcc “counselor” during the call to hand over their cash to support the nspcc. staff are not trained counselors as portrayed by our slippery executives to the media, but may have child protection working backgrounds. nspcc executives such as peter watt former Labour chairman are good for business. staff who have tried to challenge management decisions in relation to their ethical duty to protect vulnerable adult callers have been dealt with very harshly. I recall Peter watt was forced to resign by G brown for his alleged involvement in donation fraud/scandal. Nspcc has jumped on the bandwagon of the jimmy savile saga and operation yewtree. watt and the others you mention on this site are career opportunists and could not care less about others, they sleep well every night

  17. I’ve just received a mailshot from the NSPCC. Here are some excerPts from it:

    – (little girl) “He’s banging on the door. He’s going to do it again. Will you help me tell him to stop?”
    – (little boy)”My day won’t stop hurting me. I’m scared. will you help me tell him to stop?”
    – (woman neighbour) “I hear smashing all the time. I’ve seen bruises too. Am I doing the right thing by calling?”
    – “She was terrified of her mother’s boyfriend, who was very controlling and drank heavily”
    – “Her neighbour Varsha could hear Polly being chased around the house by her father”.

    All examples of abuse by men. NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ABUSE BY A WOMAN.

    This kind of advertising is extremely dangerous – 1) it gives the impression to women and children (and a good proportion of men) that ALL men are nasty, vicious, drunkard child and sex abusers and 2) NO women are.

    There really is no need for this blatant sexism, aimed squarely at demonising men and making victims of women. It’s degrading to both sexes.

  18. There really is no need for this blatant sexism, aimed squarely at demonising men and making victims of women. It’s degrading to both sexes

    Not to mention the children and young people who are taught to live in fear of men, as well as being completely sexualised and having their innocence destroyed by adult society’s sick hypocritical self-serving obsession with paedos.

  19. Sorry I’m late to the party, but here is an old link from America, which takes the data from the American national statistics. I personally checked the links some years ago, and found the data to be genuine:

    71% of Children Killed by One Parent are Killed by Their Mothers; 60% of Victims are Boys.

    I have no reason to believe that the proportions would be different for the UK, so we should speculate that there must be a government wide connivance with the hiding of the truth, in that this kind of data is never available to the public for the UK, but all the pseudo-statistics from feminist dominated NGOs, are.

Comments are closed.