Today 10th july 2012 , The missing persons charity informed the public that Kate Mccann has been appointed Ambassador of this wonderful Charity. We the undersigned , believe that until such time as the case of Madeleine Mccann s disappearance is concluded, such a role is inappropriate. An Ambassador is someone who would highlight the importance of working with the police and promote sharing imformation, as is standard procedure with any missing person cases. We feel Kate Mccann can not expect people to do what she refused to do herself.we feel this appointment is going to be detrimental to the charity in donations by members of the public.
The feedback continues to arrive daily. This level of public concern confirms that the charity needs to reconsider this appointment immediately.
Reached 100 supporters
July 10, 2012
18 Comments
H
Hema Patel
1 year ago
Featured
Is this charity advocating that it’s ok to leave such young infants alone to go to another building to wine & dine with mates, then to validate the decision by talking about distance as the crow flies? Is Missing People advocating that if your child goes missing, ensure the media is called before the police. Is Missing People advocating not to cooperate with the police and go the “no comment” route and then validate this unhelpful choice by hiding behind lawyers advice. Is Missing People a genuine charity or is it more inline with the LLC No Stone, more about protecting parents than the welfare of vulnerable children?
R
Richard Mainwaring
3 years ago
Featured
To appoint this 'parent' to this role is a disgrace considering she and her husband left 3 children under 4 years old to go to a restaurant! Absolute NO!
J
Jane Hancock
12 years ago
Featured
No-one I know leaves their children alone in a strange place to go out boozing night after night. Truly neglectful.
T
Tina Reeves
12 years ago
Featured
This is not an appropriate appointment when the circumstances of the disappearance of her own child are to say the least suspect. To leave children alone when there was a nursery around the corner is disgraceful.
S
susan
12 years ago
Featured
Inappropriate appointment regarding the dubious circumstances, lack of any conviction, voluntarily with holding vital information and popular opinion.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
Featured
There is a difference between missing children/people and 3 little ones under the age of 4 being left alone in an unlocked room night after night
A
Anonymous
1 year ago
On checking their website today, I cannot believe that Kate McCann is still linked to this charity - for over 12 years now. You couldn't make it up.
She and her husband neglected their own 3 children for several nights, out enjoying themselves wining and dining, which resulted in poor Madeleine's disappearance.
Today 10th july 2012 , The missing persons charity informed the public that Kate Mccann has been appointed Ambassador of this wonderful Charity. We the undersigned , believe that until such time as the case of Madeleine Mccann s disappearance is concluded, such a role is inappropriate. An Ambassador is someone who would highlight the importance of working with the police and promote sharing imformation, as is standard procedure with any missing person cases. We feel Kate Mccann can not expect people to do what she refused to do herself.we feel this appointment is going to be detrimental to the charity in donations by members of the public.
The feedback continues to arrive daily. This level of public concern confirms that the charity needs to reconsider this appointment immediately.
Reached 100 supporters
July 10, 2012
18 Comments
H
Hema Patel
1 year ago
Featured
Is this charity advocating that it’s ok to leave such young infants alone to go to another building to wine & dine with mates, then to validate the decision by talking about distance as the crow flies? Is Missing People advocating that if your child goes missing, ensure the media is called before the police. Is Missing People advocating not to cooperate with the police and go the “no comment” route and then validate this unhelpful choice by hiding behind lawyers advice. Is Missing People a genuine charity or is it more inline with the LLC No Stone, more about protecting parents than the welfare of vulnerable children?
R
Richard Mainwaring
3 years ago
Featured
To appoint this 'parent' to this role is a disgrace considering she and her husband left 3 children under 4 years old to go to a restaurant! Absolute NO!
J
Jane Hancock
12 years ago
Featured
No-one I know leaves their children alone in a strange place to go out boozing night after night. Truly neglectful.
T
Tina Reeves
12 years ago
Featured
This is not an appropriate appointment when the circumstances of the disappearance of her own child are to say the least suspect. To leave children alone when there was a nursery around the corner is disgraceful.
S
susan
12 years ago
Featured
Inappropriate appointment regarding the dubious circumstances, lack of any conviction, voluntarily with holding vital information and popular opinion.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
Featured
There is a difference between missing children/people and 3 little ones under the age of 4 being left alone in an unlocked room night after night
A
Anonymous
1 year ago
On checking their website today, I cannot believe that Kate McCann is still linked to this charity - for over 12 years now. You couldn't make it up.
She and her husband neglected their own 3 children for several nights, out enjoying themselves wining and dining, which resulted in poor Madeleine's disappearance.
Is this charity advocating that it’s ok to leave such young infants alone to go to another building to wine & dine with mates, then to validate the decision by talking about distance as the crow flies? Is Missing People advocating that if your child goes missing, ensure the media is called before the police. Is Missing People advocating not to cooperate with the police and go the “no comment” route and then validate this unhelpful choice by hiding behind lawyers advice. Is Missing People a genuine charity or is it more inline with the LLC No Stone, more about protecting parents than the welfare of vulnerable children?