ASA Adjudication on National Society For The Prevention of Cruelty to Children

Ad

A TV ad, for the NSPCC Full Stop Campaign, that showed a child standing in a cot. On-screen text stated "Miles is a quiet baby" and a male voice-over said "Miles has learned that nobody comes whether he cries or not". The next scene showed a girl holding a toy and on-screen text stated "Josie's always bumping into things". Male voice-over said "A DOOR, A TABLE, A FIST". On-screen text then stated "Tom doesn't tell his parents anything" and a male voice-over said "His abuser says he'll come and get Tom if he does. Sometimes we need to open our eyes to suffering that's all around us and work together to stop it. Please pledge just £2 a month to the NSPCC and be there for children in desperate need. Please, open your eyes and your heart. Call the NSPCC now on 0800 80 XX XX and give £2 a month or whatever you can. Together we can help stop cruelty to children. Full Stop. Let us start now."

Issue

A viewer, a lecturer in childhood studies, objected that the claim "together we can help stop cruelty to children" was misleading, because although charitable work could reduce child abuse it could not stop it.

BCAP TV Code

Response

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) said their mission was to end cruelty to children and believed that, over time, this was an achievable aim for society as a whole. They said the FULL STOP campaigns inception arose as a result of the findings in the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse report in 1996. The report concluded "Child abuse and neglect can almost always be prevented, provided the will to do so is there". They explained that if everyone took responsibility for the protection of children, child abuse could be significantly reduced and said their campaign sought to promote this approach.

The NSPCC explained that the FULL STOP campaign had four objectives: to develop services for children and young people; to safeguard children and develop professional practice; to raise awareness of cruelty to children and change attitudes and behaviour; and to change law and social policy. They believed their campaigning had helped to change the law and create the new offence of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult" which meant the police were able to prosecute two parents who were responsible for the death of a child even when it was not known who was directly responsible. They believed that after ten years of the FULL STOP campaign, significant steps had been taken towards changing social attitudes towards abuse and moving towards ending cruelty to children.

Clearcast endorsed the NSPCCs comments and believed it would be clear to viewers that the claim "together we can help stop cruelty to children" was the aim of the charity and did not imply all cruelty to children could be stopped

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the NSPCCs FULL STOP campaign aimed to raise awareness of child abuse, develop services for children and change social and political attitudes. We noted the complainant was particularly concerned that, since the 1880s, levels of child abuse had remained broadly unchanged and believed that this indicated that legislation alone could not stop cruelty to children. However, we noted that there were a number of factors, including the lack of good statistical evidence that could be truly comparable and changes in social attitudes that made a direct comparison unreliable. We considered, however, that most viewers would not understand the ad to be making a historically comparative claim, but rather to be making a statement that the FULL STOP campaign related to working towards a cessation of current levels of abuse.

We considered that viewers were likely to infer from the claims "Together we can help stop cruelty to children" and "Let us start now" that the NSPCC, with the help and co-operation of the public, could help stop child abuse and therefore understand the "FULL STOP" claim to be an expression of the charitys aspirations. We considered that viewers were unlikely to believe their donation or the actions of an individual or single charity would stop abuse entirely, but would rather understand that their contributions would support a charity that encouraged people to report abuse and raised public awareness of the issue. We considered that viewers would appreciate that stopping child cruelty was a difficult, on-going process, and concluded the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers about the potential effect their donation could have.

The ad was investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards rules 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 (Misleading advertising) but we did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)