Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea

Yes!  their arrogance is noted!  oh to make money from your daughters dissapearance- yeah they get the last laugh hooray!

[Mr Gray]

Yes!  their arrogance is noted!  oh to make money from your daughters dissapearance- yeah they get the last laugh hooray!

I'm sure you are one who gives them them some of the best entertainment

[Alfred R Jones]

Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea

It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.

[G-Unit]

Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days?

Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,

[stephen25000]

Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,

Precisely.

Something they never did.

[G-Unit]

It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.

Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.

[Carana]

They did attempt to provide extra information for the first year's accounts, which was when a lot of the money came from well-wishing small donors. And that money has long since been spent. If any of the larger donors wanted more information, they could simply have asked (or perhaps it was sent to them). Some of them may well have been involved in trying to set up services for them, and would be aware of the costs involved.

Why the GBP feels entitled to have the entire accounting online to scrutinise, criticise (when the auditors and the tax office don't appear to have a problem) and have their private lives including their homes photographed is beyond me. It's quite possibly why they didn't go beyond the necessary in subsequent years.

[G-Unit]

They did attempt to provide extra information for the first year's accounts, which was when a lot of the money came from well-wishing small donors. And that money has long since been spent. If any of the larger donors wanted more information, they could simply have asked (or perhaps it was sent to them). Some of them may well have been involved in trying to set up services for them, and would be aware of the costs involved.

Why the GBP feels entitled to have the entire accounting online to scrutinise, criticise (when the auditors and the tax office don't appear to have a problem) and have their private lives including their homes photographed is beyond me. It's quite possibly why they didn't go beyond the necessary in subsequent years.

It wasn't 'an attempt' it was an acceptable level of detail to fulfill their promise of transparency. Which larger donors? There is no cost involved in adding a bit more detail, there is more work in collating the information under less detailed headings.

I agree that they provided less detail in subsequent years due to criticism. One newspaper calculated that a very small percentage of the income had been spent on search-related activities. That's the most likely reason why they broke their promise.

[Alfred R Jones]

Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,

I am not invested in the constant harping on and criticising of the parents of a missing child - you are.  In my opinion that is not a particularly moral position to take, though you no doubt think the reverse is true and that you are some sort of morally superior being for asking the question in the first place.  However, please remember that everyone breaks promises from time to time and for one reason or another, even marvellous ol' you have done I expect (unless you're a saint, which I somehow doubt). 

So, the Madeleine Fund was only fully transparent (by your standards) for one year, the one year in which the general public's donations were at their peak.  Subsequently, for reasons best known to the Fund's directors the published accounts were less detailed.  The only people who seem to see this as a terrible betrayal of trust are the same people who never liked the McCanns in the first place, always suspected them of something malevolent and probably never donated to the Fund anyway.  Why is this?  Can you explain it please?   



   

[Alfred R Jones]

Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.

There is a difference between "not giving a monkey's" and preferring not to dignify "sceptics" nonsense with any sort of attention.  The McCanns are far too dignified to get embroiled in childish forum nonsense, something to their credit and to which we should really all aspire to.

[Mr Gray]

It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.

I'm having some light entertainment myself....things change..I don't think the mccanns have any moral obligation to be transparent.......the only people requesting transparency are those who spend most of their life attacking the mccanns and they have no right to talk about morals

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm having some light entertainment myself....things change..I don't think the mccanns have any moral obligation to be transparent.......the only people requesting transparency are those who spend most of their life attacking the mccanns and they have no right to talk about morals

I agree.  When it all comes out that Madeleine was ddefinitely abducted and her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance then their behaviour over the last 8 years will stand as an appalling testament to their own lack of morals, judgement and human decency.  Some might show a little contrition, the majority won't however, IMO - they'll STILL harp on about things like the "lack of transparency" of the fund, as some sort of justification for their behaviour.

[Mr Gray]

Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.

Because we believe in justice and we can't stand bullies...that's why I post

[G-Unit]

There is a difference between "not giving a monkey's" and preferring not to dignify "sceptics" nonsense with any sort of attention.  The McCanns are far too dignified to get embroiled in childish forum nonsense, something to their credit and to which we should really all aspire to.

Who's making you get 'embroiled in childish forum nonsense' then? Why do you 'dignify sceptic's nonsense' with attention? How undignified of you. It seems that saying one thing and doing another is not restricted to 'Team McCann'

[Alfred R Jones]

Who's making you get 'embroiled in childish forum nonsense' then? Why do you 'dignify sceptic's nonsense' with attention? How undignified of you. It seems that saying one thing and doing another is not restricted to 'Team McCann'

My comment was made tongue in cheek.  I fully acknowledge that what we all do here is IMO sometimes quite childish and undignified, and often plain bad manners, and occasionally very unkind.  The McCanns sensibly avoid social media shenanigans and usually don't dignify it with any sort of response.  I'm certainly not so restrained, nor as mature - at least I'm honest enough to admit it.