Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[Benice]

Yes she is chartered.

As to whether she is a forensic accountant, I do not know, b ut reading her very lengthy and detailed and meticulous analysis of the accounts should tell you that she knows what she is talking about, unless you have any criticsm of anythng she has written. Then do share. Instead of questioning credentials perhaps just read the facts.

May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?

[Alfred R Jones]

As I said, I wouldn't praise them for it, but I wouldn't be talking about the lack of transparency of the Fund, would I?

There's a difference between "not praising them" and "actively criticising them" - it's patently obvious that despite the much yearned for transparency on your part it would not stop you criticising them to the moon and back.  Please be honest now...

[Alfred R Jones]

May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?

She found plenty to "only ask questions" about.  She's also cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance by writing a fiction book inspired by case events, in which she allows herself to occupy the moral highground concerning the so-called neglect issue.

[G-Unit]

May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?

she wasn't looking at them in that way, we all know they fulfill legal requirements. she was looking at them from a 'transparency' viewpoint, and found no transparency.

[G-Unit]

There's a difference between "not praising them" and "actively criticising them" - it's patently obvious that despite the much yearned for transparency on your part it would not stop you criticising them to the moon and back.  Please be honest now...

I'm glad you noticed Alfred, top marks for observation. Do I yearn? No, I do not. I notice when people break promises though and i wonder why. Then I try to work out why. No emotions are involved at all, actually. I point out discrepancies, it is others (who possibly are emotionally involved) who describe that as 'criticising'.

[Brietta]

There is no need for a Forensic Accountant to see there is a lack of transparency in the Fund accounts.  A Forensic Accountant looks for evidence of malpractice, but they would need access to all the transactions during the financial year. As no-one has that access the question is immaterial.

For one with enough interest in making money from Madeleine McCann's case to write a book? it must have escaped her attention that there are two associated funds.

One was set up for the purpose of aiding Madeleine McCann the other was set up to benefit Mr Amaral ... therefore discussion and comparison of one cannot be achieved without discussion and comparison of the other, 'transparency' and lateness of publishing annual accounts etc.

Does any one have any idea when Ms O'dowd is going to publish a 'forensic' or otherwise analysis of the accounts for the Amaral Fund account?
Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

 

[Benice]

All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.

You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts.  It's as plain as day that  as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns.    And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time.  They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.

IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns.    One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.

Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!

IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.

Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.

[stephen25000]

All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.

You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts.  It's as plain as day that  as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns.    And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time.  They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.

IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns.    One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.

Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!

IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.

Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.

As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.

They didn't deliver.

[Jean-Pierre]

All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.

You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts.  It's as plain as day that  as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns.    And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time.  They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.

IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns.    One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.

Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!

IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.

Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.

Very good post' Bernice.  The only point in changing the way in which the accounts are presented would be:

(a) to bring in more donations (I am not sure they need more funds at present, and most of the past and present donors do not have a problem)

(b) to appease the septics (who will contribute only bile anyway)

[Jean-Pierre]

As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.

They didn't deliver.

Yes they have - just not to your exacting standards.  Get over it.   *&*%£

[Brietta]

As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.

They didn't deliver.

Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?

[stephen25000]

Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?

She has merely reinforced her mccann supporting credentials.

The rest of her statement is irrelevant.

[ferryman]

Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?

Doubtless not.

But then, what would peasants like auditors know? ....

[stephen25000]

Doubtless not.

But then, what would peasants like auditors know? ....

Do the job they're told to and paid for.

[Brietta]

Do the job they're told to and paid for.

              LOL ... have you ever had the auditors in??  ... rhetorical question ... quite obviously you have not.