UK's NSPCC REJECTS 'mandatory reporting' of suspected child abuse

by darkspilver 10 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  darkspilver

  Large article at the top of page 20 in today's - 6th November 2016 - Sunday Observer, the 'sister' newspaper in the UK of The Guardian which only prints Monday to Saturday.
  

  The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children - NSPCC - is the UK's leading children's charity, specialising in child protection and are the only UK children's charity with statutory powers and that means they can take action to safeguard children at risk of abuse.

  The headline in the web version is slightly different, but the rest of the article appears to be the same

  NSPCC rejects plan for 'mandatory reporting' of suspected child abuse
  

  The government’s consultation on reporting and acting on child abuse and neglect was launched amid concerns about past abuse in some of the country’s major institutions. High-profile inquiries, such as that into the paedophile Jimmy Savile, revealed how many people suspected abuse but failed to report their fears.

  Under the new proposal teachers, doctors and other employees in regulated professions who work with children would be legally obliged to report suspicions that a child was being abused. However, the plan has been rejected by the NSPCC.

  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/05/nspcc-rejects-bid-to-stop-abuse

  The article goes on to explain that submissions to the government's consultation regarding mandatory reporting reveal:

  AGAINST Mandatory Reporting

  • Children’s Commissioner

  • National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC)

  • British Association of Social Workers (BASW)

  • Royal College of Nursing (RCN)

  • National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)

  
  

  FOR Mandatory Reporting

  • National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)
    

  • British Medical Association (BMA)

    
    
    
    
• 

  Thisismein1972

  This just adds more evidence that child abuse goes right to the top.
• 

  prologos

  This just adds more evidence that child abuse goes right to the top.

  and the top does everything to cover up it's involvement.

  that is the wt dilemma, the bible does not address the problem. Solomon put a near= pubescent girl (the shulamite, Songs 8:8) under sexual harassment. no sanctions.

  so: how do you find your course with savile, Rotherham, Cologne the RC, all taking the headlines.

  In germany too, some government agencies want to give the ok to the child marriages among the millions of migrants flooding the country.

  ,
  
  
• 

  88JM

  I read the article. For an organisation that is supposed to be championing the protection of children, their reason for not advocating reporting seems incredibly naive.

  The example they give is a child turning up at school “hungry or unkempt“ and that with mandatory reporting:

  This would trigger a child protection investigation, one that might be unnecessary if the teachers had been able to use their professional judgment and talk to the children and their parents to establish what was happening.

  Firstly, I think the track record of "leaving it to professional judgement" shows that isn't enough - people miss the signs or there are cover-ups like WTBTS.

  Secondly, speaking to the parents isn't enough either if they are the abusers or are complicit in the coverup.

  Surely if the NSPCC are not advocating for mandatory reporting then they are advocating for the status quo which leads us to where we are now with massive cover-ups and children left vulnerable?
• 

  smiddy

  "This just adds more evidence that child abuse (sexual & otherwise ) goes right to the top."

  " and the top does everything (in its power ) to cover its involvement up."

  Shame on those organisations that reject it.
• 

  Driving Force

  Witch Hunt.
• 

  Onager

  I feel like any chance at preventing child abuse should be taken but I can also see that making it a legal obligation for teachers etc. to report any suspicion could have a lot of negative outcomes.

  The individual becomes responsible and not the system. So a teacher could be charged with missing the signs of child abuse whereas it should be the whole system which is held responsible.

  Fear of legal consequences could lead to masses of negative reports as teachers report absolutely everything lest they end up being arrested themselves. Parents could end up keeping children home from school because they'd fallen over on their rollerskates and got a black eye.

  But, on the other hand, I wouldn't want one single case of child abuse to go uninvestgated. I just don't know what the right solution is.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  Historically, leaders who have advocated leniency for certain offenses have consistently done so because they themselves were guilty of said offenses.

  
  

  Anyone who can't see this is either lying to themselves, or just plain stupid.
• 

  Giordano

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-C10 Response of the Jehovah’s Witness

  10 Organisation to the Sexual Abuse of Children ase-Study-No-29

  page 79
  

  Having regard to the various matters we have discussed in this report, we have reached a number of general conclusions on the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s response to the sexual abuse of children.
• 

  BluesBrother

  With respect to the NSPCC, suspected physical abuse is not the same as a specific disclosure of sexual abuse .

  Surely a law could be drafted to differentiate?