There may be no connection whatsoever but -

I hope the NSPCC is looking at the youths who killed Garry Newlove by kicking him to death.

These murderous thugs (who look just like your typical teenager) seemed to be totally lacking in any sort of parental control or supervision.

Is it possible that a timely smack, a raised voice, firm handling and lots of love might have prevented the months of suffering of this family, ending in the death of a fine man, husband and father.

I believe that the NSPCC and many other organisations and individuals should really work at establishing the differences between abuse and discipline: between smacking and beating: between firm parenting and bullying:

Do you KNOW where your kids are?

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

Mick Hume and his, obviously out of touch and therefore perhaps excusably ignorant, fan club need to read up on the wealth of scientific evidence that shows psychological damage caused by leaving a baby to cry. The stress of prolonged abandonment causes babies to suffer permanent damage to the brain cells. This results in emotional and behavioural disorders, such as stress, lack of confidence, depression, addiction and anorexia, in both childhood and adult life. If you find all this too taxing to the brain (perhaps you too were left to cry as a baby), just bear in mind that children who are raised with respect, love and affection are a lot more pleasant, functional and ultimately better for our economy than those raised in fear of aggressive punishment. Statistically, half the general public (probably the same readers who commented here) live in fear of British teenagers. The same ones that you would apparently happily allow to take charge of your own babies as part of a TV experiment?

Georgiana Treasure-Evans, winchester,

What a load of miserable, self-centred comments. The NSPCC does a ton of valuable work with the type of children and their families, in desperate abusive situations, that few of you would ever encounter in your smug lives. They're not destroying families - they're saving them.

George, Loughborough,

I too am at a loss to say what the NSPCC actually does. Their ads are totally irresponsible and whip up hysteria and vigilanteism. Many ads seem to be saying "give us money or the kid gets hurt"! (I'd also like to know how they get the "child actors" to cry for their ads!)
If anyone would actually like to help children (as opposed to helping the NSPCC) may I suggest a donation to Banardos, who do a lot of excellent work without feeling the need to trumpet themselves.

Anne, Shoreham, UK

I would think you are probably right. I can t imagine what the NSPCC does in an age of wall to wall social workers, except manage the spending of its donations. Child cruelty might still exist in brief sporadic form, but even in the occasional wardrobe and frying pan the NSPCC would not appear to have much relevance. The cruelty to children occurs out on the streets, and the likelihood is that the NSPCC merely provides a means of shifting the focus away from areas that should be tackled by governance, but, for reasons of similar inconvenience to the Victorian age of the NSPCC s establishment, are not.

Henry Percy, London, UK

I couldn't agree more - the NSPCC is a bogus charity, unless your definition of charity is enriching your own employees and the advertising industry. How many lives have they failed to save over the years? Victoria Climbie might be alive today if the NSPCC hadn't been having a party - no doubt funded by donations.
Get rid of them and their nasty ads - families are under enough pressure as it is.

Sally R., London, UK

I have never donated to the NSPCC since they were part of the dawn raids in "The satanic abuse scandals on Shetland in the'80s". Some of those children were never returned to their families because they had been fostered out too long before their families were proved innocent of the charges made by aberrant American doctors following their latest trendy theories. As far as I am aware the NSPCC never apologised for their part in this injustice.

moggie, Hemel Hempstead,

The NSPCC has to invent new forms of child abuse to keep it's profile high and the donations rolling in. Yet they are totally out of touch with the reality of most parents wishes. they lauched a campaign against smacking children when surely this is the perogative of parents who know their children best. they equate every attempt to impose discipline and boundaries as a form of child abuse, and in doing so are doing more harm than good, it fails to recognize that most parents do a good job, and that the proportion of parents who harm their children is minsiclue compared to the overall size of the population, it is high time it got realistic in it;s campaigns before it faces a backlash from the public.

Uche George, London, England

This typifies the society we live in today - full of lifeless morons who love making policy and meddling in other peoples affairs for no good reason. I was given a few knocks and smacks as a child and it did me the world of good, I learnt very quickly what I could and could not do - we should not be so quick to shoot down people who take an appropiate line of discipline with children. Children need to be taught to respect authority.

Philip, leeds,

I gave up on the NSPCC long ago; it seemed to be run by people with a very odd outlook on life, and willing to promote a malign influence in the courts.

Jon, Guildford, UK

The NSPCC should have been struck off as a charity when it reached the point that less than 50% of its spending was on children and it started spending massive amounts on pointless adverts.

When people put a pound in the tin they expect it go to children, not to buy a new BMW for an advertising executive.

Steve, London,

I have sympathy with parents today, particularly mothers, on whom the responsibility rests of nurturing sensitivity and love in their children - even in 2008, many Dad's see themselves as providers of "the bacon".

As a parent of "older children", I've found a child's bad behaviour is very often the result of ambiguous lines of communication between parents and their children. Most children, when they understand clearly the implications and repercussions, their bad behaviour might illicit for Mommy and Daddy, will avoid actions would hurt their family and parents.

I feel parents may avoid a lot of embarressment, by trusting their children more and establishing a context for communication where the misunderstanding of rules may be confined to a minimum.

Not withstanding communication, no matter which way you look at it, parental care (specifically for mothers) remains a challenge. Specifically today, when technology, the Internet, etc
play such an important role in our society.

C Markus, Glasgow - City Centre, Scotland

My little boy is not growing up in this country, no way around that!

jondi, London,

A certain number of people in sociery are obsessed with peoples' 'Rights' or whatever they choose to call them and take pleasure in seizing a supposed moral high ground know ing that they can shout down any dissenters as child abusers or such like.

There seems to be an obsession with avoiding any immediate hardship in any form with children, which in my view is myopic.

My parents were quite soft but I am thankful that my older brothers kept me in line, they taught me to compromise, socialise, appease and stand my ground.

We all bemoan antisocial behaviour and wag ourt fingers at it but it has never occured to the leftie molly coddlers that a child needs rules boundaries and limitations in order to be happy and well behaved.

Its cerrtainly the way I raise my son.

Matt, Cardiff,

I really am fed up with these business driven pseudo charities that pray on people's heart strings.

I find the emotional guilt advertisements in Sunday magazines and television that I am subjected to to be contravening my human rights.

You can help and make the difference! Save me from my misery please send your tax deductible payments to...

Dom, London,

Hear hear! After years of donating I finally cancelled my direct debit to that wretched organisation several months ago and shall never donate again. If they want to destroy family and trust then they can do it with someone else's money, mine shall go to other charities.

David, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

When I was a father of young children my sanity was saved by two simple rules:

1) no child ever died of starvation voluntarily

2) everything you do is wrong. Thsi does not matter as they will grow up exactly the same anyway.

rassendyll, Cambridge,