NSPCC ads - symptom, not cause
Discussion
I wont be giving to this as it not my chosen charity. But I can appreciate work that they do and no doubt they do alot of good. The trouble is, its money down the drain. Instead of protecting a child from being abused by its family, we should be preventing an abusive family from giving birth to a child.
A much better outcome for all concerned.
Instead of "Just £2 a month will protect a child from abuse.", we should have "Just £2 a month sterilises this chav."
Reckon I could get a charity license for that?
A much better outcome for all concerned.
Instead of "Just £2 a month will protect a child from abuse.", we should have "Just £2 a month sterilises this chav."
Reckon I could get a charity license for that?
jimothy said:
Does anyone know what NSPCC do with the £2 per month? The only thing I've ever seen from them is adverts to raise money. Serious question BTW.
It can be quite scary when you see how much money a charity can spend on advertising, leaflets, offices, furnishings etc.. and how much is left over to actually go to the good cause.Though the advertisements are to raise awareness of child abuse, but to my mind if you don't know that breaking your child's arms because it wanted another snack bar is wrong, an advertisement may not help you.
I wish they would campaign for more serious punishment to be levied against the perpetrators of such long standing abuse as we have heard of late.
Aiten said:
308mate said:
Instead of "Just £2 a month will protect a child from abuse.", we should have "Just £2 a month sterilises this chav."
Reckon I could get a charity license for that?
I'd cough up for that.Reckon I could get a charity license for that?
jimothy said:
Does anyone know what NSPCC do with the £2 per month? The only thing I've ever seen from them is adverts to raise money. Serious question BTW.
I've heard that Cafod are the most efficient charity in terms of how much goes to help people rather than in ads/ admin- and they get 90% or thereabouts to the causes. Those figures may not be completely accurate, but it's certainly food for thought- if they're the best, then what are other charities like?This is why I prefer to donate online rather than in the street, as a lot of the people on the street are paid to fund raise. I'm sure that by now I've paid for several mini buses for the disabled kids, but they still want more apparently.
Jasandjules said:
I wish they would campaign for more serious punishment to be levied against the perpetrators of such long standing abuse as we have heard of late.
Again though, more legislation and harsher punishments are treating the symptom. And theyre not cheap. Not as cheap as stopping a family incapable of caring for a child, from having one in the first place.Like the mum whos 3 year old somehow knew instinctively how to light and smoke a cigarette. Should not have been a parent, simple as that. Now the little fella is all of our problem.
308mate said:
esselte said:
308mate said:
Instead of "Just £2 a month will protect a child from abuse.", we should have "Just £2 a month sterilises this chav."
Unfortunately I don't think child cruelty is class (or whatever) specific...There are always exceptions, but I'm pretty sure that you'll find that, in general, people with a better level of education and income are less likely to subject their children to serious cruelty.
And in any case, even if it doesn't reduce the abuse, sterilising chavs would at least reduce the burden on the taxpayer from the benefits they'd scrounge to support their worthless spawn. Just £2 per month could save thousands in child benefit and cost of sending the brat to school/YOI/prison (delete as applicable to age).
Perhaps you could double it up with an 11-plus style exam? The top 25% get sent to grammar school, the bottom 25% get sterilised?
Money well spent, whichever way you look at it!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff