Author Topic: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review  (Read 21865 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TTSOFAFM

Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« on: May 31, 2013, 10:15:19 AM »
FUND

The main criticism that I see from reading various blogs and forums, is about the Find Madeleine Fund.  When a child goes missing, or whenever there is a tragedy in this world or a natural disaster people wish to donate.

The McCanns were well within their rights to just open a building society or bank account and release those banking details for people to pay into.

They did not.  Instead they decided to create a Company which would be bound by the rules set by Companies House.  One of those rules is that accounts have to be submitted yearly. 

The Find Madeleine Fund, is bound by the same accountancy rules and company laws, as say for instance, BP, Tescos or your local Double Glazing Company.

If the McCanns had decided to take the building society route of paying the donations into one account and not create a company, they would have been criticised if they didn't produce a balance sheet of income and expenditure.  Any fund conducted in this manner does not have to produce any accounts.  There are no laws governing donation based accounts and these types of accounts could be open to fraudulent activity.   Had the McCanns decided to take that option, providing they stated what the funds would be used for, which they did, they would have been perfectly entitled to use it for whatever purpose they deemed fit, providing it met the criteria of the fund.

When a child goes missing, people do want to help.  Maybe they can’t help in the search, but compassion and empathy play a role and people know this family are going to have to stay in another country as in the McCann case or they are not going to be able to work for a while.   

However what I do find astonishing, is the hypocritical way that people condemn the McCanns for doing the right thing, i.e. creating a company where the accounts have to be transparent and open to public scrutiny, whilst never bring into question funds that have been set up for other missing children, where the fund is not classed as a company.

In essence the McCanns by having the Fund as a Company are being more open and transparent than say a fund that is set up with just a sort code and account number or a paypal button for donations.

For instance the PJGA defence Fund, which I take is still in operation (as the donate button is still on the website), as far as I can recall has not given any figures, to what has been donated and what has been spent since Jan 2010.  That date being over 3 years ago, yet nobody questions the administrators of that fund, about what has been donated and what it has been spent on.
Quote
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral – Conta de Solidariedade
Informação 18 de Janeiro de 2010

Em 18 de Janeiro de 2010, a Conta de Solidariedade contabiliza um saldo de EUR 5718,45.

Total de donativos via PayPal: EUR 2819,49
Total de donativos por débito directo/transferência bancária: EUR 4400,00
Total de donativos angariados em jantar de solidariedade (14Jan2010): EUR 500,00

Transferência bancária para o Dr. António Cabrita, advogado de Gonçalo Amaral: EUR 2000,00
Despesas bancárias: EUR 1,04

Os Cidadãos pela Defesa dos Direitos e Liberdades - Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral agradecem a todos quantos já contribuíram para esta iniciativa.

----"----

Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral – Solidarity Account
Information 18 January 2010

On the 18th of January, 2010, the Solidarity Account's balance is of EUR 5718,45.

PayPal donations, total: EUR 2819,49
Donations by direct debit/bank wire transfer, total: EUR 4400,00
Donations from fundraising dinner (14Jan2010): EUR 500,00

Bank transfer to Dr. António Cabrita, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer: EUR 2000,00
Bank account expenses: EUR 1,04

The Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral would like to thank everyone who has already contributed to this initiative.

The Madeleine Foundation again another organisation that charges membership, which again has never produced proper accounts to show what the money has been spent on and what has been donated.  We have seen figures in posts but never documentary evidence to back up those figures.

In both of those instances above, the PJGA and Foundation Fund, there is no law that states they need to produce accounts.  But with the Find Madeleine Fund they are duty bound by law to produce accounts.

Also we must not forget the new fund created by COLD who are offering assistance to Tony Bennett with regards to his Court costs, which again is run without the laws that govern a Company.

I can name at least two funds relating to the same disappearance of a missing child, that do not seem to be bound by Company Rules, yet these funds are never scrutinised or criticised.  I wonder why?  Could it be that the Find Madeleine Fund is purely being used as another stick to bash the parents of a missing child?

So please tell me, who is more open and transparent about where money is being spent and what it is going on? And it certainly isn’t the PJGA and Madeleine Foundation, or COLD for that matter, is it?

REVIEW

There are many saying the review is a waste of taxpayer's money.  I would like to ask those who criticise the review and the McCanns, the following
  • If this was your child missing would you still think it a waste of taxpayers money?
  • If the parents were involved, as some people say, why would they campaign tirelessly for a review to be conducted?  Surely the last thing they would want is a review of the evidence, if they were guilty of committing a crime.

Offline sadie

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2013, 10:19:02 AM »
 8@??)(
Darren Osbourne  IDIOT

Only in my opinion, of course

Offline Carana

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2013, 11:10:39 AM »
FUND

The main criticism that I see from reading various blogs and forums, is about the Find Madeleine Fund.  When a child goes missing, or whenever there is a tragedy in this world or a natural disaster people wish to donate.

The McCanns were well within their rights to just open a building society or bank account and release those banking details for people to pay into.

They did not.  Instead they decided to create a Company which would be bound by the rules set by Companies House.  One of those rules is that accounts have to be submitted yearly. 

The Find Madeleine Fund, is bound by the same accountancy rules and company laws, as say for instance, BP, Tescos or your local Double Glazing Company.

If the McCanns had decided to take the building society route of paying the donations into one account and not create a company, they would have been criticised if they didn't produce a balance sheet of income and expenditure.  Any fund conducted in this manner does not have to produce any accounts.  There are no laws governing donation based accounts and these types of accounts could be open to fraudulent activity.   Had the McCanns decided to take that option, providing they stated what the funds would be used for, which they did, they would have been perfectly entitled to use it for whatever purpose they deemed fit, providing it met the criteria of the fund.

When a child goes missing, people do want to help.  Maybe they can’t help in the search, but compassion and empathy play a role and people know this family are going to have to stay in another country as in the McCann case or they are not going to be able to work for a while.   

However what I do find astonishing, is the hypocritical way that people condemn the McCanns for doing the right thing, i.e. creating a company where the accounts have to be transparent and open to public scrutiny, whilst never bring into question funds that have been set up for other missing children, where the fund is not classed as a company.

In essence the McCanns by having the Fund as a Company are being more open and transparent than say a fund that is set up with just a sort code and account number or a paypal button for donations.

For instance the PJGA defence Fund, which I take is still in operation (as the donate button is still on the website), as far as I can recall has not given any figures, to what has been donated and what has been spent since Jan 2010.  That date being over 3 years ago, yet nobody questions the administrators of that fund, about what has been donated and what it has been spent on.
Quote
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral – Conta de Solidariedade
Informação 18 de Janeiro de 2010

Em 18 de Janeiro de 2010, a Conta de Solidariedade contabiliza um saldo de EUR 5718,45.

Total de donativos via PayPal: EUR 2819,49
Total de donativos por débito directo/transferência bancária: EUR 4400,00
Total de donativos angariados em jantar de solidariedade (14Jan2010): EUR 500,00

Transferência bancária para o Dr. António Cabrita, advogado de Gonçalo Amaral: EUR 2000,00
Despesas bancárias: EUR 1,04

Os Cidadãos pela Defesa dos Direitos e Liberdades - Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral agradecem a todos quantos já contribuíram para esta iniciativa.

----"----

Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral – Solidarity Account
Information 18 January 2010

On the 18th of January, 2010, the Solidarity Account's balance is of EUR 5718,45.

PayPal donations, total: EUR 2819,49
Donations by direct debit/bank wire transfer, total: EUR 4400,00
Donations from fundraising dinner (14Jan2010): EUR 500,00

Bank transfer to Dr. António Cabrita, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer: EUR 2000,00
Bank account expenses: EUR 1,04

The Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral would like to thank everyone who has already contributed to this initiative.

The Madeleine Foundation again another organisation that charges membership, which again has never produced proper accounts to show what the money has been spent on and what has been donated.  We have seen figures in posts but never documentary evidence to back up those figures.

In both of those instances above, the PJGA and Foundation Fund, there is no law that states they need to produce accounts.  But with the Find Madeleine Fund they are duty bound by law to produce accounts.

Also we must not forget the new fund created by COLD who are offering assistance to Tony Bennett with regards to his Court costs, which again is run without the laws that govern a Company.

I can name at least two funds relating to the same disappearance of a missing child, that do not seem to be bound by Company Rules, yet these funds are never scrutinised or criticised.  I wonder why?  Could it be that the Find Madeleine Fund is purely being used as another stick to bash the parents of a missing child?

So please tell me, who is more open and transparent about where money is being spent and what it is going on? And it certainly isn’t the PJGA and Madeleine Foundation, or COLD for that matter, is it?

REVIEW

There are many saying the review is a waste of taxpayer's money.  I would like to ask those who criticise the review and the McCanns, the following
  • If this was your child missing would you still think it a waste of taxpayers money?
  • If the parents were involved, as some people say, why would they campaign tirelessly for a review to be conducted?  Surely the last thing they would want is a review of the evidence, if they were guilty of committing a crime.

Welcome to the board, TTSOFAFM.

A very thoughtful post.

Offline Mo Stache

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2013, 11:19:43 AM »
Well said TTSOFAFM.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2013, 11:24:58 AM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 11:29:03 AM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline TTSOFAFM

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2013, 11:38:37 AM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.
You have again given views on the Find Madeleine Fund, whilst completely ignoring the fact that I have highlighted 3 other funds connected to this case, which are not open and transparent.  Would you care to share your views about the lack of openness and transparency of those three funds? 

Surely those three Funds could have broadened their horizons and gained charity status.  Why didn't they bother doing that?  Could it be they wanted the funds solely to use on Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett's Court Fees?  You are being very hypocritical if you condemn the Find Madeleine Fund without condemning those other three funds.

Offline Mo Stache

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2013, 11:47:54 AM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.
If you've read the aims of the fund you will see that once Madeleine is found, it is the funds aim to broaden their scope to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. But until then, does it not count for anything that Kate McCann is fund raising for Missing People and using her public profile to help an organisation like Missing People who intern helps many many missing people and their families? You accuse the McCann's of being ultruistic, but forget that the European Amber Alert initiative was made public by the McCann's for ALL missing people. Other families ARE benefiting from fund raising by the McCann's albeit not directly through the Find Madeleine Fund.

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2013, 11:59:41 AM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.


Thinking outside the box here.      Are we to assume that when Madeleine is eventually found or maybe not that the fund will be transferred to the missing children organisation which Kate is currently associated with in England?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 02:24:36 PM by Bounty Hunter »

Offline Benice

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2013, 12:07:04 PM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.

If they could have seen into the future maybe they would have taken a different course.  However at the time donations were being made by members of the public for the express purpose of helping the McCanns and not other charities - and those wishes were rightly reflected in the way the Fund was set up.   They did not have the hindsight that you are now utilising six years later.

   
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Mrs. B

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2013, 02:30:21 PM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.


Thinking outside the box here.      Are we to assume that when Madeleine is eventually found or maybe not that the fund will be transferred to the missing children organisation which Kate is currently associated with in England?

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;

To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and

To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
[/b]

(3) Why is Madeleine's Fund not registered as a charity?

Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future, if the objects of the fund are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.
[/b]

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 02:53:00 PM by Mrs. B »

Offline Eleanor

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2013, 06:23:53 PM »

The Amy Fitzpatrick Case is being discussed on The Off Topic Forum.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2013, 06:26:52 PM »
FUND


However what I do find astonishing, is the hypocritical way that people condemn the McCanns for doing the right thing, i.e. creating a company where the accounts have to be transparent and open to public scrutiny, whilst never bring into question funds that have been set up for other missing children, where the fund is not classed as a company.

In essence the McCanns by having the Fund as a Company are being more open and transparent than say a fund that is set up with just a sort code and account number or a paypal button for donations.








You are making a false comparison

It is always possible to make something appear to be larger or smaller, better or worse, by comparing it to something else

You might as easily compare the McCann's limited company Fund to a legitimate registered charity, mightn't you ?

The picture would be very different if you did

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2013, 06:43:52 PM »

http://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/117460/missing-april-jones-fund-to-be-registered-as-a-charity.aspx


Missing April Jones' fund to be registered as a charity
Published date: 08 November 2012 | Published by: Barry Jones
Read more articles by Barry Jones

April's Fund now stands at £40,000 and will be registered as a charity
APRIL’S Fund, which now stands at around £40,000, is to be registered with the Charities Commission. 

The fund was set up as a result of money being handed in at Y Plas to support the search teams, volunteers, the community and the family of missing girl April Jones.

Town clerk Melanie Biffin said that following advice from the Charities Commission and HMRC, the fund needed to be registered.

“The fund will be put towards helping the search teams and volunteers, the local primary school and hopefully a lasting legacy for Machynlleth, as well as offering support to the family. The generosity of everyone involved has been astounding,” she said.

There will be six trustees – Dr Woodall from Machynlleth Health Centre, The Rev Kath Rogers from St Peter’s Church and Mrs Brunton, a respected local solicitor.

The other three trustees will be from the community and anyone wishing to put their name forward needs to send their details to Machynlleth Town Council at Y Plas.

Once the charity is established, Machynlleth Town Council will hand over the fund to the trustees to administer.

Anyone wishing to send a donation should use the address: MTC – April's Fund, Y Plas, Aberystwyth Road, Machynlleth, Powys, SY20 8ER.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 06:45:39 PM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Online ferryman

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2013, 06:48:38 PM »

The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children.

April Jones is tragically dead, and the only way you can spend money on someone dead is to pay for their funeral.

Has the point been firmly established that Moore didn't take the name of a chartered accountant in vain to lend spurious "credibility" to his own, poisonous, ramblings?

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Criticism of the Find Madeleine Fund and Review
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2013, 06:54:49 PM »
The McCanns could have, as the April Jones fund did and as the Charity Commission suggested, broadened the aims of the fund to include initiatives that would benefit other missing children. Charitable status could have then been gained and the extra 25p claimed through gift aid by taxpayers would have more than covered the contribution to other causes without affecting the money needed for the search. Of course being a charity would mean greater transparency when publishing accounts than that of a limited company but being able to benefit other families in the same situation as themselves would surely have been an ultruistic  gesture by the McCanns.

If they could have seen into the future maybe they would have taken a different course.  However at the time donations were being made by members of the public for the express purpose of helping the McCanns and not other charities - and those wishes were rightly reflected in the way the Fund was set up.   They did not have the hindsight that you are now utilising six years later.

 

The same could be said for the donations to the April Jones and Daniel Morecombe funds,, both funds set up due to the willingness of the public to help in those family's time of need and both being used, while the children were still missing, to fulfil wider aims in connection with children.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson