Mr Jim Gamble Monday 3 May 2010
Chief Executive
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
33 Vauxhall Bridge Road
LONDON
SW1V 2WG
Dear Mr Gamble
re: (1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions
(2)
CEOP’s close relationship with the McCanns - New video produced by Jon
Corner and released by the McCanns, using images of Madeleine McCann
with make-up and jewellery
We write to express our concern about
the images of Madeleine used by the McCanns in relation to Madeleine on
the recent video made by Jon Corner, which they released yesterday to
much fanfare.
We do so for a number of reasons, including the
very close nexus between yourself, CEOP and the McCanns (to which I
shall refer below), and also of course because of your role as Chief
Executive of CEOP, an organisation apparently dedicated to eliminating
or minimising all forms of the exploitation of children.
The
Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation founded in 2008,
partly to help learn the lessons from Madeleine’s disappearance, not
least to campaign against the practice of leaving very young children on
their own, thus exposing them to all manner of serious risks, not least
that of being abducted. In a context where the McCanns’ spokesman,
Clarence Mitchell, said as recently as 19 February in a Channel 4
interview that Madeleine’s disappearance remains ‘a complete mystery’,
we also continue to work with others to try to establish what really
happened to her and we campaign on a number of child welfare issues.
The
video in question features three images of Madeleine. One very striking
one shows her in an unusual pose, shot from well below her face,
wearing make-up, including much blue eyeshadow, lipstick and jewellery,
and looking unhappy.
The McCanns have claimed that ‘the photo
shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing box’. However,
it is very unlikely that Madeleine could have put the necklace on
herself, nor applied eyeshadow in the manner shown in the photograph,
nor applied the pink bow to her hair. The evidence from the photograph
suggests that an adult made her up and of course an adult was on hand to
take that particular image of her. Even if Madeleine had ‘raided the
dressing box’, it is one thing to take a photo of something like that
for your family photo album, but altogether another thing to release it
for millions to see.
The McCanns explicitly approved the very
public release of this video. As one newspaper reported: “Parents of
Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new
video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary
of the girl's disappearance”. The photo the McCanns specifically chose
to feature was the one with Madeleine made up, apparently by an adult
and not by herself.
There has been strong adverse reaction by
many members of the public to this image being used in connection with a
missing child. Not least was that of Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, a former
police detective and now leading criminologist and child protection
expert, who has often in the past spoken with strong sympathy and
understanding for the McCanns. His unambiguous reaction to this
particular photograph yesterday, and promoted on his ‘Twitter’ blog, was
that it was ‘so inappropriate’ and ‘so damaging’. With respect, we
agree with him.
The McCanns have from the day Madeleine was
reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine
must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often
described by them as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘ monsters’. Yet the photo
of Madeleine featured by her parents shows a child looking much older
than her actual three years, due to the make-up and jewellery, as all
the news media yesterday quickly picked up.
You may recall
statements made by the McCanns claiming that they were advised by the
police ‘not to show any emotion’ in front of the cameras. As one
newspaper reported around the time the McCanns appeared on the Oprah
Winfrey Show: “The couple also admitted they had been advised not to
show any emotion while in front of the media, because any potential
abductor ‘may get a kick out of it’.”
It is therefore a matter of
concern to us that the McCanns should project and promote an image of
Madeleine which might well appeal to certain paedophiles, some of whom
are unfortunately attracted to young children.
The general topic
of the early sexualisation of young girls has recently been addressed
by the Home Secretary, to whom you report and who appointed you. As a
Guardian editorial earlier this year noted:
“It is a year since
Jacqui Smith invited the TV psychologist Dr Linda Papadopolous to head a
‘fact-finding’ review. Her report describes a world where young girls
who can barely walk are first cajoled into wearing high heels and
T-shirts with Playboy motifs, before progressing into a grim future
dominated by an internet-based youth culture that pressurises them into
dress and behaviour which defines them overwhelmingly as sexual
objects”.
The Home Office report stated: “The evidence gathered
in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised
images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of
aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.
I enclose a copy
of a letter sent yesterday to the chief public relations manager for
the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell, expressing our concerns. In the light of
the exceptional degree of publcity given by CEOP to the disappearance
of Madeleine McCann and your own high degree of personal involvement, we
would request you to give appropriate advice to the McCanns as to
whether it is right to use these particular images, and especially the
‘make-up photo’, to draw attention to a missing child. We consider it
sets a most unfortunate precedent if the one girl whose image has most
frequently been used by CEOP to promote concerns about missing and
exploited children should now be portrayed by an image which clearly
shows her lookijg like a much older child (as the press realised
straightaway) and wearing make-up applied by an adult.
May we
also draw your attention to one specific comment made on ‘Twitter’
yesterday: “If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed
missing child, then their role in child protection has to be
questioned!” This is your opportunity to say unequivocally on behalf of
CEOP and on behalf of missing children everywhere that CEOP does not
approve of the use of such inappropriate images.
Your degree of
commitment, on behalf of CEOP, to the McCanns, has been immense, despite
the doubts prompted by their being made ‘arguidos’ and being pulled in
for questioning and the contents of the interim police report of senior
police inspector Tavares de Aleida.
You have heavily featured
Madeleine McCann on your website and in other publications about your
work. You appeared together with the McCanns 12 months ago in a
one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still
alive and needed to be found. You also appeared on morning news shows
side by side with the McCanns.
You also invited Dr Gerald McCann
in January to be the keynote speaker at a conference of the abduction of
children by paedophiles, a matter that concerned many of us, as there
is not a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile.
On top of all that, Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently asked you to
recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a
re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance and, according to press
reports, you have already delivered your recommendation to him. In view
of this intense activity on behalf of the McCanns, then, you are
without doubt in a powerful position to advise them as to their choice
of images being used to remind people about Madeleine. We trust you will
provide suitable advice to them.
The role and activities of CEOP: Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests
We
understand that CEOP has a role as a police force and has powers to
investigate alleged crimes relating to missing, abducted and exploited
children. We have also seen recent publicity in which, as we understand
it, you have advised children, young people and their parents to report
possible crimes against children such as ‘internet grooming’ directly to
yourself and not to their local police force. We have also seen recent
publicity in which you have publicly threatened ‘Facebook’ with various
sanctions if they do not adopt your suggestion of a compulsory ‘panic
button’ linked to your website.
We presume that as a public
authority you must be covered by the Freedom of Information Act and
therefore under the FOI Act we ask the questions below. If you are not
covered by the Freedom of Information Act, we trust you would answer our
questions anyway, as they are clearly in the public interest:
1. What legal powers are available to CEOP and its staff?
2.
Under what powers can CEOP insist or encourage children, young people
and their parents to report alleged crimes to CEOP rather than to their
local police force?
3. What action does CEOP take if they have
reasonable grounds for believing that an offence against children has
been or is being committed; do they investigate and if necessary charge
the offender themselves, or do they refer cases to the local police
service, or does it depend on the circumstances? If so, what are the
criteria for deciding whether a case is investigated by the police or by
yourselves?
4. What campaigning work, if any, has been carried
out by CEOP to stem the rising tide of the sexualisation of young
children, upon which so many commentators have remarked recently?
5. How many staff does CEOP employ?
6. What was the annual cost of CEOP for the last year for which figures are available?
7.
Please refer us to any campaigning work CEOP has done on the risks to
children posed by known sex offenders released into the community or to
any statements made by CEOP on this issue.
8. Has CEOP expressed a
view on current proposals, supported at the last annual conference of
the Liberal Democrats, to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to view pornography
and visit sex shops; if so, please direct us to where any such
statements may be found.
Finally, to the extent that CEOP is
effectively addressing the main issues concerning missing, abducted and
exploited children, we fully support your organisation’s work and I
would be pleased if you could kindly send us a paper copy of your latest
annual report.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett,
Secretary
Popular Posts
-
By Tony Bennett Some time ago, I exposed the links between Ernie Allen of ICMEC & NCMEC, with whom Gerry McCann spent 5 days ...
-
By Tania Cadogan, Statement Analyst Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: “They want me to lie – I’...
-
Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is ignoring the Evidence? by Philip Gunton, 1 March 2016 On 22 Februa...
-
HOW CMOMM AND FRIENDS HAVE RAISED PUBLIC AWARENESS OF WHAT’S BEEN HIDDEN There is information the public can read on the inte...
-
McCann Case: David Payne Statement Analyzed Was Madeline McCann moved in a bag? David Payne was asked about this. Taken from D...
-
Tony Bennett originally wrote this article on 7 July 2015. It was revised and updated by MMRG on 14 May 2019. WAS JIM GAMBLE A CORRU...
-
A brilliant summation of the enigmatic Charlotte Pennington by Nigel Moore who documented so much information over a period of years on...
-
The “Window of Opportunity” for the Abduction of Madeleine Beth McCann In this study we shall assume that what the McCanns and other...
-
Ben Salmon As many will be aware I have itemised the entirety of Gerald McCann’s Portuguese call records, as provided by Vodafone in D...
-
21 April 2009 Timeline 21H20, Executive Chef A. E. G. F. P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few mete...