NSPCC. Take donations - give advice - do nothing

A statement on the NSPCC website says, "£10 per month allows us to answer another 320 calls that would otherwise go unheard".

There was another voice that went unheard - the voice of a small child named Madeleine. It was unheard on the night of May 03 2007, and in many quarters, remains unheard.

The NSPCC has a golden opportunity to use the tragedy of little Madeleine to highlight parental neglect and sell the message of parental responsibility. The McCanns have been using Madeleine's plight as a marketing tool for financial benefit, the NSPCC could do the same to help protect other children being placed in the same, needless position. Yet they fail to do so.

Why?

It is not unusual for social or welfare organisations to use a specific case to champion their alleged cause. Why has the NSPCC failed to capitalise on such an opportunity?

The McCanns spout touchy-feely but empty sentiments about "awareness." The NSPCC could have initiated their own awareness campaign - yet they betray Madeleine as much as her parents and the UK media have failed a little girl less than three foot tall.

They could demand action, they could call for an enquiry, - instead they opt to sit and do nothing while counting the donations and making fine but meaningless statements.

Meaningless? Take a look at the emails below. I will let you be the judge. Note the specific reference to the McCanns.

Yes, I know the NSPCC will give the auto-reply, "We can not comment on specific cases". Yes you can - if it achieves a desired result.

What is more important? sticking to an inflexible rule book or actually providing help not only to Madeleine, but to other potential victims of selfish, irresponsible parents who deliberately choose to place their children in a position of potential harm and injury?

Original Message-----

From: Paula Jackson (Email address deleted)
Sent: 02 August 2007 09:29
To: Public Enquiry Point - NC
Subject: Please Help

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a single parent to 2 children, age 2 and 4. I work full time and the children go to a day nursery.

My employer has just been taken over by another company and the new owners are putting in a shift system. I have been told that my job will be made redundant and then I will be offered a new job and contract for a different shift. The new shift would be from 6 until midnight three days on and 3 days off.

I cant find childcare for these hours, but I need to work. Would it be OK for me to leave the children at home and get a neighbour to check on them regularly until I come home?

I have read your leaflet on leaving children home alone, and I know that it says that babies and toddlers shouldn't be left like this, but it is not any different from what Gerry and Kate McCann did and Gerry says that he has been told it is OK.

Can you let me know if it really is OK?

Thank You
Paula Jackson

This is the response

From: help@nspcc.org.uk
To: Email address deleted
CC:
Subject: Re:FW: Please Help
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:07:55 +0100

NSPCC reference: 1-3C8JJ

Dear Paula,

Thank you for your email explaining the changes to your working pattern, and asking if it would be ok to leave your children aged 2 and 4 years home alone.

The answer is, under no circumstances should young children and babies be left home alone even for a few minutes.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states: 'Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised in a manner that is likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health'.

I would advise you speak with family and friends to see if anyone would be prepared to come and stay with the children whilst you are at work, or, would anyone be willing to have the children to stay over with them?

Whilst looking for a babysitter for your children, the NSPCC would recommend that you choose a babysitter who is over 16 years of age. The reason for this is, if you use someone under 16, and something happens to a child in their care, you could be held responsible.

I hope this information is of use to you,

Kind regards,

Name Deleted
Children's Services Practitioner
Child Protection Helpline

Gerry McCann, a man with a demonstrated and proven track record in lying, has previously publicly stated that he has been officially advised that the actions of he and Madeleine's part-time mother, were within the bounds of responsible parenting.

Yet, as is always the case with Team McCann, he did not name verifiable sources. Strange when you consider his friends - the UK media - are so quick to discredit overseas reports that fail to name sources.

Who was it who advised McCann? Why was the information he was allegedly given so different to the above?

Never mind about, "Sarah's Law" or "Maddy's Law", we already have "McCann's Law" to protect well connected professionals from facing the media criticism and official censure that would be applied to lesser mortals.

According to The Times Gerry McCann's father was a joiner and his mum worked in a biscuit factory. What if his parents had left him unattended and he had gone missing?

Would they have received the same protection and idolisation?