good-cause-bad-implimentation practice

I like to check out unusual domain name use in TV ads - which led me to type www.there4them.co.uk into my browser [which, by the way is on my 3 month old laptop, complete with Windows Vista - ie it is not an old machine running out of date software]. When the site opened I was presented with a page, the main part of which was:

Now here is the thing. The TV ad was part of a campaign for the children's charity the NSPCC - and part of the message was that help stop child cruelty we should report any that we come across with the web site being part of the communication options. I am a long time advocate of [a] not putting any barriers in the way of potential customers, [b] not using technology that isn't necessary, and [c] web designers showing off. Stopping customers buying something is bad, it costs the business money. Preventing someone aiding a charity - or a child - is not just incompetent, it might cost a child's life.

And without being too dramatic - and I know child abuse is not income specific - but what are the odds on an abused child not having the latest Flash installed when they finally pluck up the courage to go to that web site? If the odds are one percent - that is one percent too much.

Footnote: this annoyed me so much I figured it deserved a wider audience - so I sent it in the Keith Craggs to see if he would consider including it in his BC Tips. He did - see his comments in NSPCC: Slowing down uptake.