This comment from Mark ended up on the bottom of the wrong post, but I think it's worth highlighting, so here it is:
I enjoy reading your blog in the main, but I'm sorry this is just a bizarre post.
Saying the NSPCC does not have a vested interest in destroying child abuse is like saying the British Heart foundation would like to see us all with heart disease or that Cancer research would rue the day that cancer is eliminated.
It is clear that you have an agenda against NSPCC due to their stance on home education. Critisizing a well repescted group like this will only harm your cause IMHO.
I guess my point is that the NSPCC (and similar organisations) have contributed towards creating a culture in which we now have a very warped concept of risk (eg. we are starting to treat all adults as though they are potential abusers) and a confused idea of what does and doesn't constitute abuse. People apply the word "abuse" to any kind of practice or behaviour toward children they disapprove of.
The NSPCC is a heavily government-funded charity that spends taxpayers' money on huge marketing campaigns and highly questionable research. It then uses what it has created to lobby government for changes that will benefit its own organisational existence but are often to the detriment of many, many children and families. That is my biggest problem with it, and it is something I feel that others should be aware of before they dig in their pockets to make additional donations. If you are interested in the appalling way the RSPCA has behaved recently, read this post by Longrider.
We intend not to send our children to school when the time comes but neither of them are old enough for this to be an issue at the moment - although I am pretty sure we will see mandatory "safe and well" checks for under-5s before long. However, if the regulatory situation changes for the worst we shall simply move. So in that sense, I would like to think that what I write here is not particularly subjective, but rather commentary on civil liberties issues that have the potential to affect all of us to some degree.
That said, I have read my previous post and felt that I did not articulate what I wanted to say well enough, so I have changed this sentence to read thusly:
It is not inaccurate to say that the NSPCC benefits from the idea that child abuse is prevalent. That's not to say that NSPCC employees don't care about children, or that they wish abuse on any child.
I do feel a bit better about that. So thanks for the comment, and let me know if there's anything else that you would like to add.
