UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on September 01, 2016, 10:51:00 AM
-
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
My question is with the fund no longer paying for a private investigation what exactly was the massive sum of £266,000 actually spent on? Was the media talk last year of money being moved to a seperate account in case a new search is needed simply a rouse to explain where the money has gone?
258
-
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
My question is with the fund no longer paying for a private investigation what exactly was the massive sum of £266,000 actually spent on? Was the media talk last year of money being moved to a seperate account in case a new search is needed simply a rouse to explain where the money has gone?
Maybe you'll have to wait for this years accounts?
-
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
My question is with the fund no longer paying for a private investigation what exactly was the massive sum of £266,000 actually spent on? Was the media talk last year of money being moved to a seperate account in case a new search is needed simply a rouse to explain where the money has gone?
Did Clarence get a "golden handshake"?
-
Did Clarence get a "golden handshake"?
£266000 worth ?
-
In 2013/2014 the situation was much the same, with 'searching' scaled down because of Operation Grange.
Merchandising and campaign costs were £63,638
[made up of 'awareness'; campaign management; event costs; postage; legal fees and expenses; travel hotels and subsistence; website and search fees]
Admin expenses £21,005
[provision of a Fund administrator, media liaison and a Portuguese speaker]
Audit £5,900
There was income into the unrestricted funds, but it was wiped out by the expenditure on Merchandising and campaign costs spent from the unrestricted funds. Income £21k Expenditure £23k
I can make a wild guess at Mitchell's costs. If he was the campaign manager he was paid £ 12.5k. If he was just media liaison he got peanuts. If he was Fund professional fees £7.4k, but they are just guesses.
So less than £100k was spent in 2013-2014. If it stayed the same then from March 2015 to August 2016 the Fund should have spent around £130k. A big bill of at least £100k seems to have been paid
The figures can all be seen here;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
-
Just as a footnote;
In the year March 2014 to March 2015 the Fund had the same cash at the end of the year as it did at the beginning, roughly. As no details were provided it's not possible to say if they received money and spent it or had no income and expenditure that year. All I can say is that the unrestricted funds rose from £175k to £185k and the restricted funds fell from £578k to £561k.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
-
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
My question is with the fund no longer paying for a private investigation what exactly was the massive sum of £266,000 actually spent on? Was the media talk last year of money being moved to a seperate account in case a new search is needed simply a rouse to explain where the money has gone?
It may have gone to Isobel. She was on pay as you go, CFA schemes being unavailable in Portugal as I understand it.
Or the press have it round their investigative journalists necks yet again.
-
My figures are not speculative, they are from the Fund filed accounts. I have guessed the expenditure of the Fund from March 2015 to August 2016, but my guess is based on the expenditure incurred during a similar period. Hence an educated guess, no speculation.
-
My figures are not speculative, they are from the Fund filed accounts. I have guessed the expenditure of the Fund from March 2015 to August 2016, but my guess is based on the expenditure incurred during a similar period. Hence an educated guess, no speculation.
educated guesses are still speculation, the clue is in the word "guess". What business is it of yours where the money went anyway?
-
educated guesses are still speculation, the clue is in the word "guess". What business is it of yours where the money went anyway?
Both are guesses, but by looking at the accounts for a similar period I have some facts to base my guess on, hence I educated myself as much as possible. The figures used were factual. I also have experience in the accounting field.
educated guess
noun
a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct.
It's as much my business as it was the business of people who pored over the details of Amaral's income and expenditure. Did you ask them the same question Alfie?
-
Anyone care to tell us how much has been paid into the fund since the last accounts were done?
-
It is the business of those who contributed to the fund. The McCanns have played the media, brought all this to the public, we are entitld to comment and ask questions about what is sold to us I.E 'No stone Unturned',' Money going on the search', 'Fund to be transparent' etc... Yes, we want to know, because they made it our business by bringig it to the publics attention. Simples.
-
Is this what we are reduced to?
Any money once donated remains the property of The MacCann Fund. It is not refundable. And it is the business only of The Fund. What The McCanns now choose to do with it is only their choice.
-
Anyone care to tell us how much has been paid into the fund since the last accounts were done?
So you think it may be £266000 + misty ?
-
So you think it may be £266000 + misty ?
I haven't got a clue, Faith. Neither do I have a clue as to why GA's legal fees are quoted as an astronomical £434,000 when he was apparently skint.
-
I haven't got a clue, Faith. Neither do I have a clue as to why GA's legal fees are quoted as an astronomical £434,000 when he was apparently skint.
I believe the figure quoted is the sum the McCanns failed to receive after Amaral won his appeal and not his legal fees.
-
I believe the figure quoted is the sum the McCanns failed to receive after Amaral won his appeal and not his legal fees.
So that makes the press article calculations incorrect then?
-
So that makes the press article calculations incorrect then?
It is understood the fund totals about £480,000 but the couple are embroiled in a bitter Portugese libel battle that could see them forced to pay £434,000 damages to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705491/Kate-Gerry-McCann-fire-Clarence-Mitchell-save-money-search-missing-Madeleine-McCann
The figure quoted is the same as the amount Amaral was originally ordered to pay to the McCanns; reported as £179,000 x 2 plus £76,000 interest. Total - £434,000. Coincidence or mistake?
a Lisbon court agreed that Amaral should pay Mr and Mrs McCann €250,000 (£179,000) each in damages and banned further sales of his book The Truth Of The Lie.
The couple's lawyer Isabel Duarte also revealed that Amaral had been told to pay interest which she said stood at present at €106,000 (£76,000).
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059286/Parents-Madeleine-McCann-WIN-libel-trial-against-Portuguese-detective-Officer-ordered-pay-couple-75-000.html#ixzz4J4qeCvqD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Is this what we are reduced to?
Any money once donated remains the property of The MacCann Fund. It is not refundable. And it is the business only of The Fund. What The McCanns now choose to do with it is only their choice.
Try gainsaying me.
Correction, it is upto the fund what it does with its money (in line with the funds aims) not the McCanns.
-
Is this what we are reduced to?
Any money once donated remains the property of The MacCann Fund. It is not refundable. And it is the business only of The Fund. What The McCanns now choose to do with it is only their choice.
Try gainsaying me.
The money belongs to a limited company.
How it is spent is decided by the board of directors of whom Drs McCann are only two and do not constitute a majority
-
Truly it is all very sad. A little girl lost nine years ago and all it comes down to is pounds and euros.
-
quote" The figure quoted is the same as the amount Amaral was originally ordered to pay to the McCanns; reported as £179,000 x 2 plus £76,000 interest. Total - £434,000. Coincidence or mistake? "
Dodgy spreadsheet with bad conditional formatting.... 8(>((
"The fund is just another stick to beat the McCanns with IMO."
... as some would say: they build a rod for their own back. Is there really any very good reason for not showing accurate, transparent records of their accounts? why the need for secrecy?, well of course this is a private company we are talking about,not a charity fund to actully look for their daughter, as we see regarding litigations etc.
-
Truly it is all very sad. A little girl lost nine years ago and all it comes down to is pounds and euros.
Unfortunately, that is not surprising.
-
It is understood the fund totals about £480,000 but the couple are embroiled in a bitter Portugese libel battle that could see them forced to pay £434,000 damages to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705491/Kate-Gerry-McCann-fire-Clarence-Mitchell-save-money-search-missing-Madeleine-McCann
The figure quoted is the same as the amount Amaral was originally ordered to pay to the McCanns; reported as £179,000 x 2 plus £76,000 interest. Total - £434,000. Coincidence or mistake?
a Lisbon court agreed that Amaral should pay Mr and Mrs McCann €250,000 (£179,000) each in damages and banned further sales of his book The Truth Of The Lie.
The couple's lawyer Isabel Duarte also revealed that Amaral had been told to pay interest which she said stood at present at €106,000 (£76,000).
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059286/Parents-Madeleine-McCann-WIN-libel-trial-against-Portuguese-detective-Officer-ordered-pay-couple-75-000.html#ixzz4J4qeCvqD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
One presumes this is a poor choice of words or do they know something we don't?
-
It is understood the fund totals about £480,000 but the couple are embroiled in a bitter Portugese libel battle that could see them forced to pay £434,000 damages to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/705491/Kate-Gerry-McCann-fire-Clarence-Mitchell-save-money-search-missing-Madeleine-McCann
The figure quoted is the same as the amount Amaral was originally ordered to pay to the McCanns; reported as £179,000 x 2 plus £76,000 interest. Total - £434,000. Coincidence or mistake?
a Lisbon court agreed that Amaral should pay Mr and Mrs McCann €250,000 (£179,000) each in damages and banned further sales of his book The Truth Of The Lie.
The couple's lawyer Isabel Duarte also revealed that Amaral had been told to pay interest which she said stood at present at €106,000 (£76,000).
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059286/Parents-Madeleine-McCann-WIN-libel-trial-against-Portuguese-detective-Officer-ordered-pay-couple-75-000.html#ixzz4J4qeCvqD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Until any further details make this clearer, it's sounding like a tabloid got their facts upside down yet gain and other tabs are copying it.
Time will tell...
-
Oh, by the way ferryman, I'm still waiting to hear how much money/payments the Mccanns received, DID NOT GO INTO THE FUND.
Would you care to enlighten us on that.
N.B. Refer to my comments yesterday, if that helps.
-
I suppose it would have made sense in April 2015 for the Fund to settle any outstanding amounts connected to the damages trial, in anticipation of receiving at least £484k from Amaral.
There was then perhaps more expense involved when it emerged that they needed to prepare a defence against his appeal.
After he won the appeal they had to fund their lawyer's work preparing the Supreme Court Appeal. Pay, pay, pay......
-
We are now in the position where there is little money to renew the private investigation and very little chance of anyone donating further after they have seen their previous donations being squandered not on the search for a little girl but on unnecessary litigation ( and do not kid yourself Benice that that is not how most but the diehard supporter will see it ). Add to that the public's view ( voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story ) that a disproportionate amount of public money has been spent on this case and short of another bestseller penned by Kate I really can't see how the McCanns will ever again be able to carry out an effective private investigation.
-
I suppose it would have made sense in April 2015 for the Fund to settle any outstanding amounts connected to the damages trial, in anticipation of receiving at least £484k from Amaral.
There was then perhaps more expense involved when it emerged that they needed to prepare a defence against his appeal.
After he won the appeal they had to fund their lawyer's work preparing the Supreme Court Appeal. Pay, pay, pay......
I wonder how much, if anything, is being spent on a retainer for Carter Ruck?
-
I wonder how much, if anything, is being spent on a retainer for Carter Ruck?
When the jam jar is empty the flies tend to gravitate to another one that is full.
-
When the jam jar is empty the flies tend to gravitate to another one that is full.
Indeed Alice, indeed.
-
We are now in the position where there is little money to renew the private investigation and very little chance of anyone donating further after they have seen their previous donations being squandered not on the search for a little girl but on unnecessary litigation ( and do not kid yourself Benice that that is not how most but the diehard supporter will see it ). Add to that the public's view ( voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story ) that a disproportionate amount of public money has been spent on this case and short of another bestseller penned by Kate I really can't see how the McCanns will ever again be able to carry out an effective private investigation.
It's your opinion not mine that money has been squandered on litigation. I have no criticism at all of their litigation against those people who have libelled them.
As for the public's view ''voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story'' I refer you to the following quote from 'sceptic' and Amaral supporter Pat Brown:-
Quote
For all of you who say folks in the UK are waking up, you are living in a fishbowl. 99% of the country has NEVER read a Madeleine McCann forum or read the PJ files. When you see a bunch of anti-McCann comments underneath a news story that isn't because the average people are getting the point: it is because YOU and others who comment HERE and on Internet forums are always looking for articles on the case and as soon as one pops up, YOU are posting comments. It is the same small group of people that are vocal, not the majority of the country. It is an ILLUSION.
End quote
At least she got that right - IMO.
-
It's your opinion not mine that money has been squandered on litigation. I have no criticism at all of their litigation against those people who have libelled them.
As for the public's view ''voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story'' I refer you to the following quote from 'sceptic' and Amaral supporter Pat Brown:-
Quote
For all of you who say folks in the UK are waking up, you are living in a fishbowl. 99% of the country has NEVER read a Madeleine McCann forum or read the PJ files. When you see a bunch of anti-McCann comments underneath a news story that isn't because the average people are getting the point: it is because YOU and others who comment HERE and on Internet forums are always looking for articles on the case and as soon as one pops up, YOU are posting comments. It is the same small group of people that are vocal, not the majority of the country. It is an ILLUSION.
End quote
At least she got that right - IMO.
Then if the money hasn't been squandered Benice can you tell me exactly what the litigation has achieved?
As to the public's view, most of the thousands of negative comments that regularly appear beneath McCann articles are from people who have never read a McCann forum or the PJ files but nonetheless are angry that either the McCanns were never called to account for their negligence or that too much public money is being spent on the one child. These are the same public that are being asked to donate.
Do you think when the public see that at least over half a million pounds has been spent by the McCanns trying to suppress a book rather than looking for their child the public once again will be willing to donate?
The lack of donations to the fund in the last few years IMO speaks volumes.
-
I haven't contributed to this thread. In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.
The OP states ...
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.
Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.
-
I haven't contributed to this thread. In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.
The OP states ...
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.
Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.
Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any. All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask? No Stone Unturned what?
-
I haven't contributed to this thread. In the main because I have no idea why members are discussing a notion which appears to have little or no provenance.
Actually that isn't quite accurate as I have my own ideas as to intention.
The OP states ...
Looking at year’s accounts the fund showed a balance of £746,152 and it is now believed to stand at just £480,000.
It is incredibly simple to check out any concerns at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history.
I am sure should there be any evidence (not just innuendo) of irregularity it would be easy enough to direct it through Companies House.
Perhaps it would be wise to wait till the end of year statement for the accounts of Madeleine's Fund when no doubt Enid O'Dowd will analyse them for us rather than indulge in what can only be meaningless tittle tattle at present.
The operative word being "history". The only way to find out the "up to the minute" is by looking in the company day books. Forbidden territory for the general public I fear. So come 1st Jan 2017 we will have a set of figures made up to March 31st 2016 and if last year is owt to go by it will be no more than a signed off balance sheet. Who cares anyway? if they run out of dosh there is only one way to point the finger.
No one misses a cupful from a full cask. There is however a limited number of times the cup can be dipped in before it becomes noticeable....simples.
-
Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any. All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask? No Stone Unturned what?
Sorry Angelo, when loose language such as ... "simply a rouse to explain ..." is used when talking about financial matters "irregularity" is the subliminal word which pops into my brain and perhaps the brains of other readers.
In my opinion members who may have evidenced past and present hostility to Madeleine's Fund which has been successful in its aim of keeping Madeleine McCann's case going until the PJ and SY took over may indeed have the legal right to 'question' that fund.
The problem comes with if they have the moral right so to do.
-
The operative word being "history". The only way to find out the "up to the minute" is by looking in the company day books. Forbidden territory for the general public I fear. So come 1st Jan 2017 we will have a set of figures made up to March 31st 2016 and if last year is owt to go by it will be no more than a signed off balance sheet. Who cares anyway? if they run out of dosh there is only one way to point the finger.
No one misses a cupful from a full cask. There is however a limited number of times the cup can be dipped in before it becomes noticeable....simples.
%£&)**#
-
Yet we are now in the position where there is little money to renew the private investigation and very little chance of anyone donating further after they have seen their previous donations being squandered not on the search for a little girl but on unnecessary litigation ( and do not kid yourself Benice that that is not how most but the diehard supporter will see it ). Add to that the public's view ( voiced month after month in the comments section of any McCann related story ) that a disproportionate amount of public money has been spent on this case and short of another bestseller penned by Kate I really can't see how the McCanns will ever again be able to carry out an effective private investigation.
It's not your problem though is it, so why concern yourself with it? If the McCanns can't afford to carry on searching for their daughter, that might fill you with spiteful delight but apart from that, what's it got to do with you?
-
Nobody has mentioned irregularity Brietta and I'm sure there isn't any. All members are asking is where have the funds all gone and since the FMF boasted open and transparent accounting from the beginning surely it isn't too much to ask? No Stone Unturned what?
If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone? This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!
-
Sorry Angelo, when loose language such as ... "simply a rouse to explain ..." is used when talking about financial matters "irregularity" is the subliminal word which pops into my brain and perhaps the brains of other readers.
In my opinion members who may have evidenced past and present hostility to Madeleine's Fund which has been successful in its aim of keeping Madeleine McCann's case going until the PJ and SY took over may indeed have the legal right to 'question' that fund.
The problem comes with if they have the moral right so to do.
Legal rights are the same for everyone. Moral rights are a matter of opinion. [except in the legal sense when they seem to be something to do with copyright].
-
If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone? This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!
Perhaps you need to raise the point with the media? They printed figures relating to the Fund, presumably to inform the general public, so I see nothing wrong with discussing those figures. Particularly as a seemingly large chunk of the money has been spent with no hint in the media as t why.
-
If no one believes there has been any irregularity in the way the fund has been spent, then what business is it of anyone's where the money has gone? This is not a publicly owned company accountable to the general public we're discussing here, though some seem to think otherwise!
As Brietta says this is not only about the legal right but 'moral right' to spend publicly donated money in a way that is not within the stated aims of the fund.
-
I'm not sure how much if anything has been donated to Madeleine's Fund over the past few years by members of the public. I have formed the impression gleefully suggested in some posts that it doesn't amount to a great deal.
However if people wish to donate ... that is entirely their choice.
If people do not wish to donate ... that is entirely their choice.
If they object donating indirectly via the tax route to investigating an active line of inquiry in the case of a missing child who hopefully may still be alive, I am sure there must be a complaint procedure they can follow.
In my opinion morality and legality enter the equation at the point of that particular objection.
-
Let's leave morality out of it and deal with legality 8(>((
Precis.
A private limited company over a 9 year plus period had receipts totalling ca £4.5MM. Over the same period of time the expenditure was ca £4.00MM ( I am just using figures bandied about in the press so leave me alone. However if one trawls through Companies House stuff (how sad is that?) it looks about right).
The responsibility for the effective running of the company lay with the board of directors.
After the musical chairs and Madhatter's tea party at the beginning with one or two "names" as directors who subsequently resigned, it finally distilled down to Drs McCann and a few others who appeared to be family friends or relatives but no matter.
If the place has run itself out of dosh and can no longer deliver on it's objectives the directors can blame no one but themselves. They were there to know what made the clock tick on their manor...........easy old stuff innit.
-
Let's leave morality out of it and deal with legality 8(>((
Precis.
A private limited company over a 9 year plus period had receipts totalling ca £4.5MM. Over the same period of time the expenditure was ca £4.00MM ( I am just using figures bandied about in the press so leave me alone. However if one trawls through Companies House stuff (how sad is that?) it looks about right).
The responsibility for the effective running of the company lay with the board of directors.
After the musical chairs and Madhatter's tea party at the beginning with one or two "names" as directors who subsequently resigned, it finally distilled down to Drs McCann and a few others who appeared to be family friends or relatives but no matter.
If the place has run itself out of dosh and can no longer deliver on it's objectives the directors can blame no one but themselves. They were there to know what made the clock tick on their manor...........easy old stuff innit.
8)-))) well said alice
-
As Brietta says this is not only about the legal right but 'moral right' to spend publicly donated money in a way that is not within the stated aims of the fund.
I am a member of the public who has donated to the fund. I have no problem with how my money was spent - or will be spent.
This is because I have no reason to believe there is anything fraudulent about the fund, or that the McCanns are 'innit' for the money. People who are greedy for money don't put hundreds of thousands of pounds, which they could quite legitimately put into their own bank accounts, into a fund. Neither do they donate to charity thousands of pounds which they also could keep for themselves. Neither do they hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to expensive PI companies - when all they had to do was say 'No - we prefer not to employ them - we are happy with our own employees'.
Just another example IMO of the McCanns doing the complete opposite of what guilty people who are greedy for money for themselves would do.
The ability of some to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
AIMHO
-
I am a member of the public who has donated to the fund. I have no problem with how my money was spent - or will be spent.
This is because I have no reason to believe there is anything fraudulent about the fund, or that the McCanns are 'innit' for the money. People who are greedy for money don't put hundreds of thousands of pounds, which they could quite legitimately put into their own bank accounts, into a fund. Neither do they donate to charity thousands of pounds which they also could keep for themselves. Neither do they hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to expensive PI companies - when all they had to do was say 'No - we prefer not to employ them - we are happy with our own employees'.
Just another example IMO of the McCanns doing the complete opposite of what guilty people who are greedy for money for themselves would do.
The ability of some to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.
AIMHO
They do if they wish to look as if they are not benefitting from their daughter's disappearance but, as directors, still have control over that money.
-
Let's leave morality out of it and deal with legality 8(>((
Precis.
A private limited company over a 9 year plus period had receipts totalling ca £4.5MM. Over the same period of time the expenditure was ca £4.00MM ( I am just using figures bandied about in the press so leave me alone. However if one trawls through Companies House stuff (how sad is that?) it looks about right).
The responsibility for the effective running of the company lay with the board of directors.
After the musical chairs and Madhatter's tea party at the beginning with one or two "names" as directors who subsequently resigned, it finally distilled down to Drs McCann and a few others who appeared to be family friends or relatives but no matter.
If the place has run itself out of dosh and can no longer deliver on it's objectives the directors can blame no one but themselves. They were there to know what made the clock tick on their manor...........easy old stuff innit.
In the absence of any suggestion that Madeleine's Fund has acted illegally ... there remains only the morality of the constant attack to which it is exposed and has been from its inception to threads such as this on internet fora.
As far as I am concerned they have achieved the impossible.
They have 'left no stone unturned' resulting in the reopening of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by the people best equipped to get a result ... the Policia Judiciaria ... Scotland Yard
All of which seems to have caused some people great angst for reasons best known to themselves.
-
Perhaps you need to raise the point with the media? They printed figures relating to the Fund, presumably to inform the general public, so I see nothing wrong with discussing those figures. Particularly as a seemingly large chunk of the money has been spent with no hint in the media as t why.
Perhaps you should ask the media to investigate on your behalf if it's such a pressing matter for you.
-
As Brietta says this is not only about the legal right but 'moral right' to spend publicly donated money in a way that is not within the stated aims of the fund.
Perhaps you could start up a pressure group of all those who feel they have been morally wronged by the McCanns and petition for a refund of the ten quid these aggrieved and morally wronged people have donated.
-
Perhaps you could start up a pressure group of all those who feel they have been morally wronged by the McCanns and petition for a refund of the ten quid these aggrieved and morally wronged people have donated.
And perhaps the McCanns could have just been honest about how they were going to use the money then the public could have made an informed decision in regard to donating. Simple really.
-
And perhaps the McCanns could have just been honest about how they were going to use the money then the public could have made an informed decision in regard to donating. Simple really.
Perhaps when they set up the Fund they had no idea that one of the policemen charged with finding their daughter would spend the next 10 years determined to ruin their reputations and convince the world their child was dead or that they would need to spend so much money trying to counteract his lies and smears.
-
Perhaps when they set up the Fund they had no idea that one of the policemen charged with finding their daughter would spend the next 10 years determined to ruin their reputations and convince the world their child was dead or that they would need to spend so much money trying to counteract his lies and smears.
IYO of course but even if they hadn't known they've had many, many years and their own website to make the matter crystal clear. Any idea why they haven't ?
-
IYO of course but even if they hadn't known they've had many, many years and their own website to make the matter crystal clear. Any idea why they haven't ?
The matter is crystal-clear.
Their daughter was abducted and a cheap-skate Portuguese cop accused them.
-
IYO of course but even if they hadn't known they've had many, many years and their own website to make the matter crystal clear. Any idea why they haven't ?
How much money in the form of personal donations eg: pocket money and pensions have the McCanns received between years 2 and 10 do you reckon? Say, as a % of the overall receipts.
-
The matter is crystal-clear.
Their daughter was abducted and a cheap-skate Portuguese cop accused them.
I am afraid it isn't, and your diversions do not aid the Mccanns.
-
I am afraid it isn't, and your diversions do not aid the Mccanns.
imo his/mcann supporters undying devotion make the mcanns look more suspicious imo
-
In the absence of any suggestion that Madeleine's Fund has acted illegally ... there remains only the morality of the constant attack to which it is exposed and has been from its inception to threads such as this on internet fora.
As far as I am concerned they have achieved the impossible.
They have 'left no stone unturned' resulting in the reopening of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by the people best equipped to get a result ... the Policia Judiciaria ... Scotland Yard
All of which seems to have caused some people great angst for reasons best known to themselves.
How do you work that out. The objectives of the company were to bring the guilty parties to book and find Madeleine.
Show me where that was achieved.
-
How do you work that out. The objectives of the company were to bring the guilty parties to book and find Madeleine.
Show me where that was achieved.
I'm not terribly sure that can be accomplished without the involvement of law enforcement; in this instance of two countries.
Any suggestion how Madeleine's Fund could have circumvented that requirement ... or don't you think it matters?
-
I'm not terribly sure that can be accomplished without the involvement of law enforcement; in this instance of two countries.
Any suggestion how Madeleine's Fund could have circumvented that requirement ... or don't you think it matters?
They certainly circumvented the initial investigation.
-
They certainly circumvented the initial investigation.
Please cite your example.
-
I'm not terribly sure that can be accomplished without the involvement of law enforcement; in this instance of two countries.
Any suggestion how Madeleine's Fund could have circumvented that requirement ... or don't you think it matters?
That's not my call. I did not put it in the company objectives for all to see. Are you suggesting those who did were at fault?
-
How much money in the form of personal donations eg: pocket money and pensions have the McCanns received between years 2 and 10 do you reckon? Say, as a % of the overall receipts.
And again why didn't the McCanns make it absolutely clear at any time in the last ten years that the donations the public were making would, in part, be used to fund the parents own private litigation?
-
And again why didn't the McCanns make it absolutely clear at any time in the last ten years that the donations the public were making would, in part, be used to fund the parents own private litigation?
You didn't answer my question.
-
From the libellously named McCann Fund Fraud website I found this:
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
"Mainly for legal expenditure”
A video follows verifying he said this. Indeed, this early explanation of what the fund would be used for has itself been used as a stick with which to beat the McCanns, but what cannot be said is that all the poor little children and the frail old pensioners had no idea that the pocket and pension money they were shoving in Brian Kennedy's pockets would be used for legal expenditure or to help the McCann family generally as is being made out here. They knew as early as May 17 2007, and the admission did not see a sudden halt to further donations did it?
-
Furthermore, when you google Madeleine Fund, the libellously named "McCann Fund Fraud" is the fifth entry. It has a section called "disgruntled donors". Now imagine the hundreds, if not thousands of disgruntled donors there must be, all the little children (now a bit older) and impoverished OAPs who feel cheated out of their pocket money and pensions by the Fund because of the money being spent on legal fees, you'd think the website would be groaning under the weight of all that disgruntlement wouldn't you? Well actually there is 1 disgruntled donor from Germany who is seething about her £5 paypal donation. Apparently she knows that her £5 wasn't used to pay for the investigation somehow.
Utterly pathetic.
-
Here is Disgruntled from Germany's message. Note the offer of help to "get them" at the end ("I'll happily hold a pitchfork or a blazing torch")
Hi from Germany!
I paid 5 GBP by PayPal. At this point of time I really thought, they were actually interested in searching for Madeleine and not just to collect money and hoard it for a good life to fourth. It is their moral obligation to all donors, to open the expenditure of funds.
This is the PayPal proof of payment. It is not much but it came from the heart and unfortunately landed directly in their wallets.
So, if you need my help to get them, tell me what I can do.
-
From the libellously named McCann Fund Fraud website I found this:
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
"Mainly for legal expenditure”
A video follows verifying he said this. Indeed, this early explanation of what the fund would be used for has itself been used as a stick with which to beat the McCanns, but what cannot be said is that all the poor little children and the frail old pensioners had no idea that the pocket and pension money they were shoving in Brian Kennedy's pockets would be used for legal expenditure or to help the McCann family generally as is being made out here. They knew as early as May 17 2007, and the admission did not see a sudden halt to further donations did it?
Please clarify. Did or did not Brian Kennedy say by 17 May 2007 that the fund would be used mainly for legal expenditure?
You seem to be saying that he did.
-
And another thing - money started pouring in in the first few days of Madeleine's disappearance. Do you think that all those who gave money in those first weeks gave it expecting it be be needed for a long and expensive private investigation? Most who gave would have done so hoping and praying that the PT police would soon find her, but privately expecting the worst news to come out of Portugal any day. I know I did. So don't let's have any more of this claptrap about the morality of how the money was spent. Most people who gave at the beginning (when most of the public donations were made), gave out of sympathy to the McCanns themselves and a desire to help them and their family, not for any specific purpose such as paying out for investigators. In most high profile cases, especially those involving children the public like to give cash as a way of showing their support (see April Jones also - do you think all those donors gave with the expectation that the Jones family would use it to fund a private investigation when the police failed to find her? Rubbish!)
-
Please clarify. Did or did not Brian Kennedy say by 17 May 2007 that the fund would be used mainly for legal expenditure?
You seem to be saying that he did.
I couldn't have made my post any clearer but see if this helps:
YES HE DID SAY THE FUND WOULD BE USED MAINLY FOR LEGAL EXPENDITURE.
Now I expect the thread to take a hasty turn in another direction... @)(++(*
-
I couldn't have made my post any clearer but see if this helps:
YES HE DID SAY THE FUND WOULD BE USED MAINLY FOR LEGAL EXPENDITURE.
Now I expect the thread to take a hasty turn in another direction... @)(++(*
Do you not think a website called "Find Madeleine" and the fund it promotes should have been used exclusively to fund the search for Maddie rather than fund litigation which has so far proved to be a complete and utter waste of time and money and has achieved absolutely zilch as far as the original objective of the fund was concerned?
-
I couldn't have made my post any clearer but see if this helps:
YES HE DID SAY THE FUND WOULD BE USED MAINLY FOR LEGAL EXPENDITURE.
Now I expect the thread to take a hasty turn in another direction... @)(++(*
Thank you.
Is there any reason why Mr Brian Kennedy thought, by 17 May 2007, that the fund would not be for living expenditure (travel, accommodation, expenses back home whilst off work), or search expenditure (for the missing Madeleine McCann)? But rather thought, a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, that legal expenditure was top of the pile?
-
I think it should be pointed out that the Find Madeleine limited Company is called "No Stone Unturned Limited" and not "Throw a Pile of Stones Limited"!
-
Do you not think a website called "Find Madeleine" and the fund it promotes should have been used exclusively to fund the search for Maddie rather than fund litigation which has so far proved to be a complete and utter waste of time and money and has achieved absolutely zilch as far as the original objective of the fund was concerned?
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
“Mainly for legal expenditure”
As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.
At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/#comments
I doubt very much if it was envisaged that there would be a diversion when the lead detective wrote a book asserting that Madeleine was dead taking care to implicate her parents in that death.
-
Thank you.
Is there any reason why Mr Brian Kennedy thought, by 17 May 2007, that the fund would not be for living expenditure (travel, accommodation, expenses back home whilst off work), or search expenditure (for the missing Madeleine McCann)? But rather thought, a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, that legal expenditure was top of the pile?
Don't you think the legal expenses may have had a direct association with the recovery of the missing child? They were in the position to know exactly why it was required ... we are not.
-
I think it should be pointed out that the Find Madeleine limited Company is called "No Stone Unturned Limited" and not "Throw a Pile of Stones Limited"!
I must admit I have thought about compiling a list of the 'unturned stones' in this case just to see how high the number goes. It is a futile exercise though, as I can't see those 'unturned stones' being turned in the near future.
-
Don't you think the legal expenses may have had a direct association with the recovery of the missing child? They were in the position to know exactly why it was required ... we are not.
Absolutely NOT!! All they have been used for now is to cover the McCanns own asses!
...and that has backfired big time leaving them to pay a huge damages and legal expenses bill.
-
Thank you.
Is there any reason why Mr Brian Kennedy thought, by 17 May 2007, that the fund would not be for living expenditure (travel, accommodation, expenses back home whilst off work), or search expenditure (for the missing Madeleine McCann)? But rather thought, a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, that legal expenditure was top of the pile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-selling
*snipped*
Other cultures and worldwide[edit]
In Greece, "babies of ... young women are sometimes sold to adoptive parents before their mothers even leave the hospital."[57] In 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol in Greece.[58]
Worldwide, in modern years, according to reporter Barbara Bisantz Raymond, brokers steal and sell children.[59] In France, Italy, and Portugal, in 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol.[58]
International law[edit]
One proposal is the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a treaty which would ban child-buying
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much litigation would be required if the above had occurred?
Had Madeleine been removed to a country which doesn't subscribe to the Hague Convention, how much litigation be required?
Amaral's book hadn't even been drafted by 17/5/2007 so there was no preconception along those lines.
-
Don't you think the legal expenses may have had a direct association with the recovery of the missing child? They were in the position to know exactly why it was required ... we are not.
If Brian Kennedy thought the top priority a fortnight after Madeleine disappeared was for legal expenses he was either on the inside track or he was a clairvoyant.
The clue is in the date - 17 May 2007.
Hmmm, no PIs hired. OC was housing the McCanns and co. Was there any sign of legal action on the horizon? Nope.
The lawyers were going to do what? Tough question.
-
And another thing - money started pouring in in the first few days of Madeleine's disappearance. Do you think that all those who gave money in those first weeks gave it expecting it be be needed for a long and expensive private investigation? Most who gave would have done so hoping and praying that the PT police would soon find her, but privately expecting the worst news to come out of Portugal any day. I know I did. So don't let's have any more of this claptrap about the morality of how the money was spent. Most people who gave at the beginning (when most of the public donations were made), gave out of sympathy to the McCanns themselves and a desire to help them and their family, not for any specific purpose such as paying out for investigators. In most high profile cases, especially those involving children the public like to give cash as a way of showing their support (see April Jones also - do you think all those donors gave with the expectation that the Jones family would use it to fund a private investigation when the police failed to find her? Rubbish!)
I'm absolutely sure that if most of those who donated money AT ANY TIME were told up front that that money would be used for libel litigation they would not have donated. I assume that's why the McCanns have never included the fact in the aims of the fund detailed on their website.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-selling
*snipped*
Other cultures and worldwide[edit]
In Greece, "babies of ... young women are sometimes sold to adoptive parents before their mothers even leave the hospital."[57] In 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol in Greece.[58]
Worldwide, in modern years, according to reporter Barbara Bisantz Raymond, brokers steal and sell children.[59] In France, Italy, and Portugal, in 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol.[58]
International law[edit]
One proposal is the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a treaty which would ban child-buying
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much litigation would be required if the above had occurred?
Had Madeleine been removed to a country which doesn't subscribe to the Hague Convention, how much litigation be required?
Amaral's book hadn't even been drafted by 17/5/2007 so there was no preconception along those lines.
Part and parcel perhaps of Madeleine being made a ward of court weeks after her disappearance.
**snip
“This application is just part of their search for Madeleine.”
Madeleine’s status as a ward of court has never been disclosed by her parents, who quietly made a wardship application in the High Court just weeks after she went missing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents-court-bid-for-information.html
-
I'm absolutely sure that if most of those who donated money AT ANY TIME were told up front that that money would be used for libel litigation they would not have donated. I assume that's why the McCanns have never included the fact in the aims of the fund detailed on their website.
Why ever not? It certainly didn't stop people in their thousands donating to an overseas purely libel litigation fund at a later date, mistakenly under the impression that they were supporting justice for Madeleine.
-
Why ever not? It certainly didn't stop people in their thousands donating to an overseas purely libel litigation fund at a later date, mistakenly under the impression that they were supporting justice for Madeleine.
With Amaral's fund it was made perfectly clear from its inception that the money was going to be used for his legal fees and I'll guess that you have no evidence that thousands gave to it by mistake. The McCanns, on the other hand, have never informed the public either in media articles, in Kate's book or within the aims of the fund that the money the generous public were donating was going to be used for private libel litigation. That is simply wrong
-
And another thing - money started pouring in in the first few days of Madeleine's disappearance. Do you think that all those who gave money in those first weeks gave it expecting it be be needed for a long and expensive private investigation? Most who gave would have done so hoping and praying that the PT police would soon find her, but privately expecting the worst news to come out of Portugal any day. I know I did. So don't let's have any more of this claptrap about the morality of how the money was spent. Most people who gave at the beginning (when most of the public donations were made), gave out of sympathy to the McCanns themselves and a desire to help them and their family, not for any specific purpose such as paying out for investigators. In most high profile cases, especially those involving children the public like to give cash as a way of showing their support (see April Jones also - do you think all those donors gave with the expectation that the Jones family would use it to fund a private investigation when the police failed to find her? Rubbish!)
Well its not rubbish at all as john mccann told the public in the fund launch press conference that as the case got protracted, and madeleine not found, when the police closed their investigation, PIs would be needed
Just saying for info
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child-selling
*snipped*
Other cultures and worldwide[edit]
In Greece, "babies of ... young women are sometimes sold to adoptive parents before their mothers even leave the hospital."[57] In 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol in Greece.[58]
Worldwide, in modern years, according to reporter Barbara Bisantz Raymond, brokers steal and sell children.[59] In France, Italy, and Portugal, in 2007, brokering was being investigated by Interpol.[58]
International law[edit]
One proposal is the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a treaty which would ban child-buying
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much litigation would be required if the above had occurred?
Had Madeleine been removed to a country which doesn't subscribe to the Hague Convention, how much litigation be required?
Amaral's book hadn't even been drafted by 17/5/2007 so there was no preconception along those lines.
You typed that as if Mr Kennedy had that scenario in his mind when saying what he did
It didnt come to pass at all
The first years accounts show that out of 815k a quarter of it went on legal expenditure though
Expensive business
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg&target=tlx_picamk1
Edited "third" to a "quarter"
-
With Amaral's fund it was made perfectly clear from its inception that the money was going to be used for his legal fees and I'll guess that you have no evidence that thousands gave to it by mistake. The McCanns, on the other hand, have never informed the public either in media articles, in Kate's book or within the aims of the fund that the money the generous public were donating was going to be used for private libel litigation. That is simply wrong
The money donated by the general British public would not have even covered Oakley's fees imo. You'd have to ask the limited number of wealthy benefactors if they object to the manner in which their money is being spent as there is no obvious public support now for the McCanns (according to the learned thousands who comment on social media & newspaper articles).
-
You typed that as if Mr Kennedy had that scenario in his mind when saying what he did
It didnt come to pass at all
The first years accounts show that out of 815k a third of it went on legal expenditure though
Expensive business
IMO BK had many legal scenarios in his mind at that time after speaking with various sources.
Subsequently there was the little matter of the arguido status to be dealt with. You think theparents & their friends would have been entitled to freebies?
-
IMO BK had many legal scenarios in his mind at that time after speaking with various sources.
Subsequently there was the little matter of the arguido status to be dealt with. You think theparents & their friends would have been entitled to freebies?
Ah, so, legal defence WAS on the agenda from day 1 of the fund
But esther mcvey told us all not a penny would be paid for this
Never mind, been through all this before
-
The money donated by the general British public would not have even covered Oakley's fees imo. You'd have to ask the limited number of wealthy benefactors if they object to the manner in which their money is being spent as there is no obvious public support now for the McCanns (according to the learned thousands who comment on social media & newspaper articles).
No matter how small or large the contribution from the public to the fund was, and we have no evidence that anyone other than Brian Kennedy actually gave the McCanns any money, the public were unable to make an informed choice in regard to donating because they were deliberately kept in the dark about how a large chunk of the money was going to be spent.
-
No matter how small or large the contribution from the public to the fund was, and we have no evidence that anyone other than Brian Kennedy actually gave the McCanns any money, the public were unable to make an informed choice in regard to donating because they were deliberately kept in the dark about how a large chunk of the money was going to be spent.
At the time the vast majority of people were donating it was not obvious what failures were occurring in the search for Madeleine which eventually led to the removal of the person who subsequently became the primary cause for such extensive litigation. Such a shame for all concerned that he didn't follow the same route as TdA or quietly retire to the Azores.
-
Why ever not? It certainly didn't stop people in their thousands donating to an overseas purely libel litigation fund at a later date, mistakenly under the impression that they were supporting justice for Madeleine.
A Fund to be used to defend, not to attack. The attack was presented as a defense, but many people interpreted it as an attack on freedom of speech, as did the Appeal Court. That Fund had a clear open objective and achieved it.
People knew exactly what the money was to be used for and donated to it for a wide variety of reasons. I think a member of this forum said he donated because everyone should be able to defend themselves in court.
-
A Fund to be used to defend, not to attack. The attack was presented as a defense, but many people interpreted it as an attack on freedom of speech, as did the Appeal Court. That Fund had a clear open objective and achieved it.
People knew exactly what the money was to be used for and donated to it for a wide variety of reasons. I think a member of this forum said he donated because everyone should be able to defend themselves in court.
If memory serves me well the member's post to which you refer is Jean-Pierre whose post had nothing to do with Madeleine's Fund but was actually in reference to his donation to Goncalo Amaral's Fund.
-
In my opinion, suing Amaral was in fact going to help the search for Madeleine, as they put their point forward that Amaral was saying Madeleine was dead, if people thought Madeleine was dead, then why would they keep a look out for her? Why would, if they thought they had any helpful information for the police regarding Madeleine, come forward and report it?
To stop Amaral's book being published and sold to the public, the McCann's sued and put their side of the story out there. There was no proof that Madeleine was dead and Madeleine needed the publics help to find her.
As a person who give readily to the Madeleine fund, I am in agreement with what the McCann's did and have no issue with them using the fund for suing Amaral.
-
In my opinion, suing Amaral was in fact going to help the search for Madeleine, as they put their point forward that Amaral was saying Madeleine was dead, if people thought Madeleine was dead, then why would they keep a look out for her? Why would, if they thought they had any helpful information for the police regarding Madeleine, come forward and report it?
To stop Amaral's book being published and sold to the public, the McCann's sued and put their side of the story out there. There was no proof that Madeleine was dead and Madeleine needed the publics help to find her.
As a person who give readily to the Madeleine fund, I am in agreement with what the McCann's did and have no issue with them using the fund for suing Amaral.
The Mccanns 'story' as you call it, was already out there, worldwide.
There is no law as far as I am aware that people should believe the Mccanns 'story', and many certainly don't.
As to taking legal action, that was their foolish choice. It gave Amaral more publicity and it has achieved NOTHING.
-
If memory serves me well the member's post to which you refer is Jean-Pierre whose post had nothing to do with Madeleine's Fund but was actually in reference to his donation to Goncalo Amaral's Fund.
Exactly. As I said, the reason he donated was so Amaral had the means to defend himself in court.
-
In my opinion, suing Amaral was in fact going to help the search for Madeleine, as they put their point forward that Amaral was saying Madeleine was dead, if people thought Madeleine was dead, then why would they keep a look out for her? Why would, if they thought they had any helpful information for the police regarding Madeleine, come forward and report it?
To stop Amaral's book being published and sold to the public, the McCann's sued and put their side of the story out there. There was no proof that Madeleine was dead and Madeleine needed the publics help to find her.
As a person who give readily to the Madeleine fund, I am in agreement with what the McCann's did and have no issue with them using the fund for suing Amaral.
I agree. Any Fund money used to defend and maintain Madeleine's RIGHT to be regarded as a living, missing child who should be searched for - and not publicly dismissed as dead by a proven corrupt cop - when there is no evidence to show that - is OK with me.
The fact that it is obviously not OK with some people - is inexplicable to me - and also very sad IMO.
-
I'm absolutely sure that if most of those who donated money AT ANY TIME were told up front that that money would be used for libel litigation they would not have donated. I assume that's why the McCanns have never included the fact in the aims of the fund detailed on their website.
So where is your evidence to prove what 'MOST' of the people who donated would have done? You can have no way of knowing that unless you know everyone who did donate and their reasons for doing so. Wishful thinking doesn't count.
For all anyone knows, people may have donated when they found out that the policemen in charge of the case was an arguido accused - and later proven to be implicated in an attempt to cover up the torture of the mother of his previous and only other 'missing child' case. Who knows?
-
At the time the vast majority of people were donating it was not obvious what failures were occurring in the search for Madeleine which eventually led to the removal of the person who subsequently became the primary cause for such extensive litigation. Such a shame for all concerned that he didn't follow the same route as TdA or quietly retire to the Azores.
However they latterly knew so why not inform the public, via there website, then?
-
Thank you.
Is there any reason why Mr Brian Kennedy thought, by 17 May 2007, that the fund would not be for living expenditure (travel, accommodation, expenses back home whilst off work), or search expenditure (for the missing Madeleine McCann)? But rather thought, a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, that legal expenditure was top of the pile?
And that is precisely the change of thread direction I predicted... 8@??)(
-
I'm absolutely sure that if most of those who donated money AT ANY TIME were told up front that that money would be used for libel litigation they would not have donated. I assume that's why the McCanns have never included the fact in the aims of the fund detailed on their website.
"Absolutely sure" based on what? Conducted a far reaching survey have you? You seem to have completely ignored all the points I made last night, par for the course I suppose.
-
In my opinion, suing Amaral was in fact going to help the search for Madeleine, as they put their point forward that Amaral was saying Madeleine was dead, if people thought Madeleine was dead, then why would they keep a look out for her? Why would, if they thought they had any helpful information for the police regarding Madeleine, come forward and report it?
To stop Amaral's book being published and sold to the public, the McCann's sued and put their side of the story out there. There was no proof that Madeleine was dead and Madeleine needed the publics help to find her.
As a person who give readily to the Madeleine fund, I am in agreement with what the McCann's did and have no issue with them using the fund for suing Amaral.
That was the justification but I'm afraid the trial judge rode a horse and cart through that.
-
Absolutely NOT!! All they have been used for now is to cover the McCanns own asses!
...and that has backfired big time leaving them to pay a huge damages and legal expenses bill.
So are you telling us that NONE of the fund has been spent on trying to find Madeleine?
-
And round and round we go. You may have changed your name Alfie but your MO has remained exactly the same. transparent but still rather tedious.
When you answer my posts without even attempting to address the questions posed therein. am going to take you to task about it. If this poses you discomfort simply ignore my posts, but if you answer them without addressing my questions I will continue to highlight this.
-
No matter how small or large the contribution from the public to the fund was, and we have no evidence that anyone other than Brian Kennedy actually gave the McCanns any money, the public were unable to make an informed choice in regard to donating because they were deliberately kept in the dark about how a large chunk of the money was going to be spent.
They were told on 17th May 2007 it would be used for legal fees, did the donations dry up as a result? Why do you think people gave money to the McCanns in the first few weeks of Madeleine's disappearance? For what purpose? You seem to know everything so tell us why.
-
They do if they wish to look as if they are not benefitting from their daughter's disappearance but, as directors, still have control over that money.
Typical - when the facts show the complete opposite of what you want them to show - claim a conspiracy.
-
"Absolutely sure" based on what? Conducted a far reaching survey have you? You seem to have completely ignored all the points I made last night, par for the course I suppose.
Let's cut through the noise Alfie. If you can supply a cite which gives just one example either in the print or broadcast media, Kate's book or the Find Madeleine website or Facebook page where the McCanns proactively informed the donating public that they were using a large part of their donations to conduct private litigation then I will withdraw everything I have so far said and never mention it again
-
They were told on 17th May 2007 it would be used for legal fees, did the donations dry up as a result? Why do you think people gave money to the McCanns in the first few weeks of Madeleine's disappearance? For what purpose? You seem to know everything so tell us why.
Why so early in the case would the public imagine ' legal fees' would mean libel litigation? I think you're clutching at straws there Alfie. I'm sure at that juncture even the McCanns didn't think for one moment they'd have to take such action.
-
Typical - when the facts show the complete opposite of what you want them to show - claim a conspiracy.
But isn't that exactly what has happened?
-
Let's cut through the noise Alfie. If you can supply a cite which gives just one example either in the print or broadcast media, Kate's book or the Find Madeleine website or Facebook page where the McCanns proactively informed the donating public that they were using a large part of their donations to conduct private litigation then I will withdraw everything I have so far said and never mention it again
Pure speculation - but could it be that the lack of the kind of statement you expect from them is because they know that people who support them require no such explanations - and they don't have to answer to a group of people on the internet avidly devoted to finding fault with everything they say and everything they do? The Fund being a prime example.
-
But isn't that exactly what has happened?
Only to those who decide to see a 'conspiracy' in everything that doesn't suit them - but which they can't refute.
IMO
-
Let's cut through the noise Alfie. If you can supply a cite which gives just one example either in the print or broadcast media, Kate's book or the Find Madeleine website or Facebook page where the McCanns proactively informed the donating public that they were using a large part of their donations to conduct private litigation then I will withdraw everything I have so far said and never mention it again
You know perfectly well no such quote exists and are simply deflecting yet again from the question I asked - why? You made a claim, now you back it up.
-
Why so early in the case would the public imagine ' legal fees' would mean libel litigation? I think you're clutching at straws there Alfie. I'm sure at that juncture even the McCanns didn't think for one moment they'd have to take such action.
Again, not even an attempt to answer the question. Why did people fall over themselves to give money to the McCanns in the first weeks of Madeleine's disappearance? On what did the donors expect their money to be spent, do you think? Did they all give knowing in advance that the police investigation would fail to find Madeleine, alive or dead, and therefore were giving money solely to fund a future search, do you think?
-
A young child goes missing tomorrow, it is in all the media for the next few weeks, the public send money to the family in support - do they give money conditionally, that it must not be spent on certain things in future, only to buy cuddly toys for the missing child, or what? Do you give money to others in distress with conditions attached?
-
And that is precisely the change of thread direction I predicted... 8@??)(
That is because, if there was no legal action on the horizon on 17 May 2007, it was rather odd to say the main use would be legal fees.
It begs the blindingly obvious question of what legal action Brian Kennedy thought might ensue, just a fortnight after Madeleine disappeared.
-
A young child goes missing tomorrow, it is in all the media for the next few weeks, the public send money to the family in support - do they give money conditionally, that it must not be spent on certain things in future, only to buy cuddly toys for the missing child, or what? Do you give money to others in distress with conditions attached?
I would believe that most people Alfie would believe any money donated would be used to search for their missing child.
Paying legal expenses for the parents would never come into their thinking.
-
They were told on 17th May 2007 it would be used for legal fees, did the donations dry up as a result? Why do you think people gave money to the McCanns in the first few weeks of Madeleine's disappearance? For what purpose? You seem to know everything so tell us why.
Sorry to butt in, but I have often wondered about that. I can only speak for myself, but my first thought following the news wasn't to wonder if the couple needed financial help. I might have thought it if they were in low paid jobs, but they weren't.
Gerry McCann received paid compassionate leave and Kate two month's pay from her employers, so lack of money shouldn't have been an immediate concern, despite Gerry's sister saying that family and friends had to rally round to pay the couple's mortgage.
“Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine’s father works“.
Guardian 17 May 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html
So despite the paid leave, someone decided to fundraise immediately and raised a significant amount before the Fund launch. Was that a member of staff or someone connected to the family? I know collecting buckets were dotted around the Ocean Club.
-
That is because, if there was no legal action on the horizon on 17 May 2007, it was rather odd to say the main use would be legal fees.
It begs the blindingly obvious question of what legal action Brian Kennedy thought might ensue, just a fortnight after Madeleine disappeared.
Legal fees do not arise solely out of a need for taking legal action against another you know.
-
Sorry to butt in, but I have often wondered about that. I can only speak for myself, but my first thought following the news wasn't to wonder if the couple needed financial help. I might have thought it if they were in low paid jobs, but they weren't.
Gerry McCann received paid compassionate leave and Kate two month's pay from her employers, so lack of money shouldn't have been an immediate concern, despite Gerry's sister saying that family and friends had to rally round to pay the couple's mortgage.
“Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine’s father works“.
Guardian 17 May 2007
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html
So despite the paid leave, someone decided to fundraise immediately and raised a significant amount before the Fund launch. Was that a member of staff or someone connected to the family? I know collecting buckets were dotted around the Ocean Club.
Money poured in unsolicited. People were stuffing Brian Kennedy's pockets with it. Why do you suppose? To fund a future private investigation? Of course not. It's what people do these days. They see something upsetting on TV that really moves or touches them and they want to show their support. Many do this by sending money. In my experience they don't send money with caveats about what it can and can't be spent on.
-
Legal fees do not arise solely out of a need for taking legal action against another you know.
Doesn't get us any further forward on why Kennedy envisaged legal fees as the main use a mere fortnight after the disappearance.
-
That is because, if there was no legal action on the horizon on 17 May 2007, it was rather odd to say the main use would be legal fees.
It begs the blindingly obvious question of what legal action Brian Kennedy thought might ensue, just a fortnight after Madeleine disappeared.
It's very difficult to work out just why a barrister would fly out to Portugal for the weekend on the off chance that the McCann's might hire his company. Did he think they had the kind of money to hire a top-flight international company? It costs around £5,000 per day for a top lawyer, goodness knows how much weekend work costs.
I can't understand either why he and the paralegal were told by the McCanns to keep their arrival low-key.
-
Doesn't get us any further forward on why Kennedy envisaged legal fees as the main use a mere fortnight after the disappearance.
Perhaps he couldn't think of any other possible use for the money at that time, imagining that the case would soon be resolved by Madeleine's discovery, dead or alive.
-
Again, not even an attempt to answer the question. Why did people fall over themselves to give money to the McCanns in the first weeks of Madeleine's disappearance? On what did the donors expect their money to be spent, do you think? Did they all give knowing in advance that the police investigation would fail to find Madeleine, alive or dead, and therefore were giving money solely to fund a future search, do you think?
People gave to feel that ' they were doing something'. I very much doubt if they had been told originally that it would be spent on libel litigation they would have donated quite so generously. I believe that is why to this day the McCanns have never publicly announced that they are using the fund to sue.
-
Another example of a Fund that was set up in response to an overwhelming desire by the public to contribute in light of a tragedy. No one can tell me that the public sent money because they thought Wills and Harry were hard up!
"The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (‘the Fund’) was established within days of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales on 31 August 1997, in response to the donations that poured into Kensington Palace. The general public, community groups and companies donated some £34 million"
It's just what people do these days. Perhaps it's a poor reflection on modern behaviour eh? Giving money is a way for people to get involved in a media tragedy and make themselves feel better about themselves. The cynic's view. But don't tell me that the people who gave, gave with strings attached. That's just rubbish.
-
People gave to feel that ' they were doing something'. I very much doubt if they had been told originally that it would be spent on libel litigation they would have donated quite so generously. I believe that is why to this day the McCanns have never publicly announced that they are using the fund to sue.
Haha!
"And today we have a press conference with Mr & Mrs McCann, over to you Kate and Gerry"
"Yes, thank you. We would like to announce to an expectant world that we intend to use some of the Fund money for litigation, hope that's all OK with you guys".
Why would they do that? Is it what people with Funds do? Public proclamations to the media about how it is to be spent?
Should they make a public statement every time they spend Fund money?
"We would like to announce today live on air that we intend to spent £4872 of Fund money on website costs over the next 6 months. We trust this meets with the approval of the General Public".
-
It's very difficult to work out just why a barrister would fly out to Portugal for the weekend on the off chance that the McCann's might hire his company. Did he think they had the kind of money to hire a top-flight international company? It costs around £5,000 per day for a top lawyer, goodness knows how much weekend work costs.
I can't understand either why he and the paralegal were told by the McCanns to keep their arrival low-key.
There seems to be a number of influential people getting involved in this purely for the excitement of being on the inside track. I suppose the barrister might have wanted to see for himself how big the 'back garden' actually was, but other than that it seems a lot of effort for a conversation that could have occurred over the phone.
As to why the McCanns might wish to keep the arrival of this squad from the media and/or the police, the potential reason seems obvious. Did this pair make any sort of splash in either the media or the police, or do they simply feature in Kate's book?
-
Brian Kennedy also gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. This time he was eager to tell us how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:
“Mainly for legal expenditure”
As this was the first raison d’etre for the Madeleine Fund, and confirmed nationally by one of its directors, we can conclude that the Madeleine Fund was set up to provide legal funds for the McCanns.
At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2011/05/brian-kennedy-admits-madeleine-fund-was-for-legal-expenditure/#comments
I doubt very much if it was envisaged that there would be a diversion when the lead detective wrote a book asserting that Madeleine was dead taking care to implicate her parents in that death.
It matters not what Mr Kennedy may or may not have said. The ruling document is the company's Articles of Association; 'tis what that says that counts. Copies at Companies House or on Pamalam for anyone interested.
Another director:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h8Qc3YCaHY
-
I haven't been following this thread too closely but it appears to have gone sideways and so suggest it is split into two. The bit I don't get is why did the McCanns not only accept money at all in those early days but positively encourage it?
-
The Mccanns 'story' as you call it, was already out there, worldwide.
There is no law as far as I am aware that people should believe the Mccanns 'story', and many certainly don't.
As to taking legal action, that was their foolish choice. It gave Amaral more publicity and it has achieved NOTHING.
A book written by the Co-ordinator of the case, even though he was thrown off it, would be interesting to the public especially the Portuguese public. Written by such a man, what he wrote would be to most of them the true story, because who would dare say that a person who was the Co-ordinator of the case would not tell the absolute truth? He wrote about what he believed happened to Madeleine, and added a lot of unsavoury titillating bits ... he made out that he was a lone brave soldier battling along to get the truth, risking his family in doing so.
The McCann's had to sue him, I have no doubt you would have too. They had to tell it from their side, there was NO evidence Madeleine was dead.
-
I haven't been following this thread too closely but it appears to have gone sideways and so suggest it is split into two. The bit I don't get is why did the McCanns not only accept money at all in those early days but positively encourage it?
The public wanted to help in the search for Madeleine, they give them money the only thing they probably felt they could do. They had to open a fund for this money otherwise where could they put it?
I didn't hear the McCann's asking for this money at the beginning.
-
The public wanted to help in the search for Madeleine, they give them money the only thing they probably felt they could do. They had to open a fund for this money otherwise where could they put it?
I didn't hear the McCann's asking for this money at the beginning.
I agree with the first part Lace. The generous public donated money to help find Maddie and there we have the crux of it in a nutshell...HELP FIND MADDIE!
Your final comment is partially true. They did not elicit donations but they also didn't tell people not to donate.
-
I agree with the first part Lace. The generous public donated money to help find Maddie and there we have the crux of it in a nutshell...HELP FIND MADDIE!
Your final comment is partially true. They did not elicit donations but they also didn't tell people not to donate.
Can you point me in the direction of any parent with a missing child who has a fund, that has told people not to donate to it?
-
Can you point me in the direction of any parent with a missing child who has a fund, that has told people not to donate to it?
Can you point me to any other case where the parents of a missing child have within days set up a limited company and surrounded themselves with press agents, PR experts and lawyers in both England and Portugal?
-
Can you point me to any other case where the parents of a missing child have within days set up a limited company?
There isn't another case like Madeleine's.
-
Doesn't get us any further forward on why Kennedy envisaged legal fees as the main use a mere fortnight after the disappearance.
Defense?
-
Defense?
That seems one obvious possibility, but without clarification from Mr Kennedy, it would be speculative to think it was the reason.
-
That seems one obvious possibility, but without clarification from Mr Kennedy, it would be speculative to think it was the reason.
I was thinking of the phrase 'fighting fund' as used by the barrister from IFLG. Fighting usually involves attack and defense. Can you think of anyone they were planning on attacking by 11th May?
-
I was thinking of the phrase 'fighting fund' as used by the barrister from IFLG. Fighting usually involves attack and defense. Can you think of anyone they were planning on attacking by 11th May?
When did the information become public about the patio door being unlocked? Presumably that would have raised a concern about possible negligence charges (which did not happen, to be clear) and the possibility of the press rounding on them.
The IFLG barrister would have an opinion on the former. Presumably another set of legal eagles would be required for the latter.
-
I was thinking of the phrase 'fighting fund' as used by the barrister from IFLG. Fighting usually involves attack and defense. Can you think of anyone they were planning on attacking by 11th May?
It's a turn of phrase - are you unfamiliar with it?
fighting fund
nounBRITISH
money raised to finance a campaign, especially one supporting a political or social cause.
-
It's a turn of phrase - are you unfamiliar with it?
fighting fund
nounBRITISH
money raised to finance a campaign, especially one supporting a political or social cause.
Just another example IMO of the petty nitpicking which has become the norm for some in this case.
It wouldn't matter what the fund was called - it would be wrong in some folks eyes.
-
It's a turn of phrase - are you unfamiliar with it?
fighting fund
nounBRITISH
money raised to finance a campaign, especially one supporting a political or social cause.
Used is sentences such as;
the action group launched a fighting fund to pay legal costs if defeated
Campaigners against an incinerator in East Hull have started a fighting fund to raise money for a barrister to fight their corner at a public inquiry.
synonyms;
war chest
Fighting cancer;
http://www.melissasfightingfund.co.uk/Welcome.html
It always seems to involve fighting for or against something. Fighting for the return of Madeleine? Would that involve using it ''mainly for legal expenditure'' [Brian Kennedy 17th May 2007]?
-
Because generous members of the public were already donating money and the McCanns wanted to set up a framework to demonstrate that it was being used honestly.
That's why.
If it was being used properly the McCanns would have made it clear sooner that they were using the fund to pursue libel litigations.
-
If it was being used properly the McCanns would have made it clear sooner that they were using the fund to pursue libel litigations.
They put it intheir accounts 2009/10 ,
See
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1682.0
Not thereafter
and obviously all interested public read companies house accounts
But they also went on to solicit more donations in 2010
From 00 45
https://youtu.be/34NLVmrQsoA
Full transcript
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id343.html
So they knew what expenses they would have
Thegeneral public wouldnt have known donations were for these
As for the initial kennedy comment, they all knew what it might be for, the public didnt and itwasnt explained
No matter, people donate and thats that
Were they hoodwinked, ? Not at the start but later imo probably, dunno really
-
If it was being used properly the McCanns would have made it clear sooner that they were using the fund to pursue libel litigations.
How many people who support the McCanns and who have given to their fund over the years don't also support their action against Amaral do you think?
-
Until the last few weeks unless you were following the case closely you would have had no idea that the fund had been used to fund the libel litigation. How can you you complain if you do not know there is anything to complain about ? As to the public's feeling when the fund money is spent inappropriately, do you remember the amount of public anger displayed when the McCanns used the fund to pay their mortgage. I do.
-
Until the last few weeks unless you were following the case closely you would have had no idea that the fund had been used to fund the libel litigation. How can you you complain if you do not know there is anything to complain about ? As to the public's feeling when the fund money is spent inappropriately, do you remember the amount of public anger displayed when the McCanns used the fund to pay their mortgage. I do.
Good point. When were the mortgage payments revealed? Did that put an end to all future donations to the fund from that date onwards...?
-
Until the last few weeks unless you were following the case closely you would have had no idea that the fund had been used to fund the libel litigation. How can you you complain if you do not know there is anything to complain about ? As to the public's feeling when the fund money is spent inappropriately, do you remember the amount of public anger displayed when the McCanns used the fund to pay their mortgage. I do.
You "sceptics" have been bleating on about the misuse of the Fund for the best part of 10 years (even though 99% of you never donated a penny). What makes you guys so special that you know exactly what's what, whilst assuming that all those who DID contribute to the fund without complaint are stupid, disinterested or blind sheeple. Is that what you think? You have no more privileged information about the Fund and what it's been spent on than everyone else, though you may like to think you're Miss Marple.
-
Good point. When were the mortgage payments revealed? Did that put an end to all future donations to the fund from that date onwards...?
I'm afraid by that time their suspect status had achieved that. I especially remember John McCann, one of the directors at the time, bemoaning the situation.
-
I'm afraid by that time their suspect status had achieved that. I especially remember John McCann, one of the directors at the time, bemoaning the situation.
Are you claiming they never got another public donation from the time they were made arguidos? If so then then problem solved. No public donations were spent on private litigation. Happy now?
-
You "sceptics" have been bleating on about the misuse of the Fund for the best part of 10 years (even though 99% of you never donated a penny). What makes you guys so special that you know exactly what's what, whilst assuming that all those who DID contribute to the fund without complaint are stupid, disinterested or blind sheeple. Is that what you think? You have no more privileged information about the Fund and what it's been spent on than everyone else, though you may like to think you're Miss Marple.
I think the members of the general public who did contribute to the fund were stupid, disinterested or blind steeple. I think they did it in good faith to help a suffering family. That their kindness was abused is no reflection on them.
-
Are you claiming they never got another public donation from the time they were made arguidos? If so then then problem solved. No public donations were spent on private litigation. Happy now?
Donations certainly slowed down.
-
I think the members of the general public who did contribute to the fund were stupid, disinterested or blind steeple. I think they did it in good faith to help a suffering family. That their kindness was abused is no reflection on them.
I personally know many supporters none of whom feel their kindness was abused. How do you account for this?
-
Donations certainly slowed down.
From what to what?
-
You have usually beat me to the request.
Now please accede to my request ... or amend your post. Thank you.
You need to be a bit quicker, perhaps? I don't have any problem providing cites because I don't usually say things unless I know they're documented.
-
I personally know many supporters none of whom feel their kindness was abused. How do you account for this?
I'd hazard a guess that they are diehard supporters such as yourself.
-
From what to what?
No idea. Perhaps you should asked John McCann as he made the claim.
-
I think you were being asked for a cite? A reasonable request on the forum.
I'll second that.
-
So where is your evidence to prove what 'MOST' of the people who donated would have done? You can have no way of knowing that unless you know everyone who did donate and their reasons for doing so. Wishful thinking doesn't count.
For all anyone knows, people may have donated when they found out that the policemen in charge of the case was an arguido accused - and later proven to be implicated in the torture of the mother of his previous and only other 'missing child' case. Who knows?
I agree, the public tend to donate first and ask questions later. It is human nature to have regrets later on when the circumstances change. I think most people would donate if they knew for sure that their donation would be used constructively in the search for Madeleine and not on face saving exercises. In fact it would have been better if people wholly independent of the case were in charge of the funds. I can see a new thread about to sprout.
-
No idea. Perhaps you should asked John McCann as he made the claim.
I don't have his number sorry, can you provide a cite? Do the accounts each year not give a figure for incoming funds? If they made a million in the first year and virtually none in the second then that would support the idea that once they'd been made arguidos the public deserted them in droves. It does also however mean that actual public donations only represent a fraction of the overall Fund receipts and it should therefore be possible to work out how much, if any, actual public donations have been spent on litigation costs.
-
Why do McCann supporters and the McCanns etc., think they had an entitlement for using donated money to pay 'legal fees and other expenses, including travel' ?
Namely, yet again why should others pay for the mistakes of the McCanns, when there is no evidence whatsoever they have contributed to them from their salaried work ?
-
I don't have his number sorry, can you provide a cite? Do the accounts each year not give a figure for incoming funds? If they made a million in the first year and virtually none in the second then that would support the idea that once they'd been made arguidos the public deserted them in droves. It does also however mean that actual public donations only represent a fraction of the overall Fund receipts and it should therefore be possible to work out how much, if any, actual public donations have been spent on litigation costs.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/02-12-2007-Mail-MaddiesUncleInFundFury.JPG
Further even if they public donations were a couple of hundred pounds if they donated while unaware that the money would be used for libel litigation they are still unable to make an informed choice.
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/02-12-2007-Mail-MaddiesUncleInFundFury.JPG
Further even if they public donations were a couple of hundred pounds if they donated while unaware that the money would be used for libel litigation they are still unable to make an informed choice.
At the time of this article, Dec 2007 £700k of £1.1m had already been spent on detectives. There were then receiving about £10k a month and paying out £50k a month on detectives. Given that it is unlikely they sustained £10k a month public donations for many more months after this article appeared, I don't really see what your beef is, particularly as litigation costs didn't begin until the majority of public donations had already been spent on detectives and other (non litigation) costs.
-
At the time of this article, Dec 2007 £700k of £1.1m had already been spent on detectives. There were then receiving about £10k a month and paying out £50k a month on detectives. Given that it is unlikely they sustained £10k a month public donations for many more months after this article appeared, I don't really see what your beef is, particularly as litigation costs didn't begin until the majority of public donations had already been spent on detectives and other (non litigation) costs.
Let's reel this discussion in. My claim was that the public could not make an informed choice when donating to the fund as they were unaware that it was being used to pay for libel litigation. I posted that the McCanns had never openly informed the public that they were using the fund for libel litigation. You agreed. Therefore I don't see your problem.
-
Let's reel this discussion in. My claim was that the public could not make an informed choice when donating to the fund as they were unaware that it was being used to pay for libel litigation. I posted that the McCanns had never openly informed the public that they were using the fund for libel litigation. You agreed. Therefore I don't see your problem.
As the public don't really make donations now, nor have they in any significant amount since 2008 and since no money was spent on litigation til years later it's a non-issue, but you're still determined to make something out of nothing. That's what I take issue with.
-
From what to what?
Nothing is completely clear, but donation/web sales are very small over the years ending 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Income;
Year 1 £1,846,178 litigation £550,000
Year 2 £629,181 " £375,000
Year 3 £233,099
Year 4 £177,534
Year 5 £856,303 Book £738,487
Year 6 £70,250 NotW £21,257
Year 7 £421,264 Book £400,000
Year 8 Undisclosed
Total £4,233,899 Total £2.084,744
From parents, friends, litigation £2,084,744
Total from Kate Mccann £1,138,487 Years; 2012 [£738,487] and 2014 [£400,000]
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, both doctors, also hope sales of the book will raise £1million to continue funding the worldwide hunt.
Mrs McCann said: 'Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.'
Daily Mail By SAM GREENHILL
Last updated at 11:07 PM on 6th May 2011
From litigation;
Express Newspaper Group £550.000 March 2008
T7 £375,000 Oct 2008
News of the World reward money [donations] £21,257.32 April 2011
All from http://www.mccannfiles.com/id502.html
-
As the public don't really make donations now, nor have they in any significant amount since 2008 and since no money was spent on litigation til years later it's a non-issue, but you're still determined to make something out of nothing. That's what I take issue with.
The McCanns failed to tell donators that they were using the fund to pay for libel litigation. They had every opportunity to through the press, Kate's book or social media. Why do you think they didn't?
-
The McCanns failed to tell donators that they were using the fund to pay for libel litigation. They had every opportunity to through the press, Kate's book or social media. Why do you think they didn't?
Because there wasn't a significant number of donors after the first few months and it was nobody's business (including yours) maybe? Isn't a Fund aim "to support the McCann family" in unspecified ways anyway?
-
The McCanns failed to tell donators that they were using the fund to pay for libel litigation. They had every opportunity to through the press, Kate's book or social media. Why do you think they didn't?
The money they received as a result of libel litigation did not go into their own pockets. What's the problem, exactly?
-
Nothing is completely clear, but donation/web sales are very small over the years ending 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Income;
Year 1 £1,846,178 litigation £550,000
Year 2 £629,181 " £375,000
Year 3 £233,099
Year 4 £177,534
Year 5 £856,303 Book £738,487
Year 6 £70,250 NotW £21,257
Year 7 £421,264 Book £400,000
Year 8 Undisclosed
Total £4,233,899 Total £2.084,744
From parents, friends, litigation £2,084,744
Total from Kate Mccann £1,138,487 Years; 2012 [£738,487] and 2014 [£400,000]
The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, both doctors, also hope sales of the book will raise £1million to continue funding the worldwide hunt.
Mrs McCann said: 'Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.'
Daily Mail By SAM GREENHILL
Last updated at 11:07 PM on 6th May 2011
From litigation;
Express Newspaper Group £550.000 March 2008
T7 £375,000 Oct 2008
News of the World reward money [donations] £21,257.32 April 2011
All from http://www.mccannfiles.com/id502.html
So how much have they received from litigation versus how much they have spent on litigation?
-
Because there wasn't a significant number of donors after the first few months and it was nobody's business (including yours) maybe? Isn't a Fund aim "to support the McCann family" in unspecified ways anyway?
Who bought the book? The public. Who bought the newspapers? The public. So all the money came from the public directly or indirectly.
The Fund stopped supporting the family ages ago. That clause was removed.
-
I wonder why everyone forgets this, it has been posted more than often enough.
Readily available from Companies House. So from the horses mouth as it were and no reason to make up stories:
"Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 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.
2B.2 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".
If the accounts for a limited company are no ones business why can they be obtained from Companies House and why is there a legal requirement to post them?
-
I agree, the public tend to donate first and ask questions later. It is human nature to have regrets later on when the circumstances change. I think most people would donate if they knew for sure that their donation would be used constructively in the search for Madeleine and not on face saving exercises. In fact it would have been better if people wholly independent of the case were in charge of the funds. I can see a new thread about to sprout.
I suppse it's natural to ask people you know and trust to be directors, but the drawback is they can later be seen as overly sympathetic.
-
Who bought the book? The public. Who bought the newspapers? The public. So all the money came from the public directly or indirectly.
The Fund stopped supporting the family ages ago. That clause was removed.
When exactly? All the while the public were making actual donations it was a clause, yes?
-
When exactly? All the while the public were making actual donations it was a clause, yes?
It's all here, Alfie;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
-
It's all here, Alfie;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
I can't be bothered to wade through all that. I'm sure you know the answers anyway.
-
I can't be bothered to wade through all that. I'm sure you know the answers anyway.
It would seem you don't though so perhaps a read would inform you?
-
Because there wasn't a significant number of donors after the first few months and it was nobody's business (including yours) maybe? Isn't a Fund aim "to support the McCann family" in unspecified ways anyway?
The fund was sold as being transparent so it's ridiculous to now claim that the public are not allowed to ask questions when the see it clearly isn't.
-
It would seem you don't though so perhaps a read would inform you?
No need, I know the gist, I'm not fanatical enough to read and log every last pound shilling and penny.
-
I wonder why everyone forgets this, it has been posted more than often enough.
Readily available from Companies House. So from the horses mouth as it were and no reason to make up stories:
"Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 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.
2B.2 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".
If the accounts for a limited company are no ones business why can they be obtained from Companies House and why is there a legal requirement to post them?
Thank you, Alice.
2B.1.2 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.
Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria reviewed Madeleine's case and reopened it in 2013. In my opinion that is 'job done' as far as thorough investigation goes.
I have no doubt both policing bodies have striven absolutely to apprehend those responsible; do you feel Madeleine's Fund has not met the aim outlined in 2B.1.2 ?; if so ~ in what way do you feel they have been remiss?
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
In my opinion, that is exactly what the PJ and SY are attempting to do. One can only wish them every success as they follow lines of enquiry with the positive outlook that they may be searching for a living child.
**snip
Mr Duthie, who leads Scotland Yard's Homicide and Major Crime Command, told the Evening Standard: "There is ongoing work. There is always a possibility that we will find Madeleine and we hope that we will find her alive.
"That's what we want and that's what the family and the public want and that is why the Home Office continue to fund it. There is work that needs to be done still."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-could-still-be-found-alive-insists-detective/
All in all I think Madeleine's Fund has gone as far towards achieving its stated aims as it would be possible to do.
The important thing is that it has got us to this stage although the ultimate which is the recovery of Madeleine is yet to happen but who is to say it won't enabling the Fund money to be devoted to 2B.2.
Not bad for an allegedly "fraudulent fund".
-
The fund was sold as being transparent so it's ridiculous to now claim that the public are not allowed to ask questions when the see it clearly isn't.
You're allowed to ask any question you like, doesn't mean you're obliged to receive an answer. As for the transparency - you got a year of it and when it became apparent that the detail was going to be used as a stick with which to beat the McCanns still further, the fund became more opaque. In any case after a year public donations had dried up. Most of the money came from the litigation and book sales, not from the impoverished tiny kids and OAPs.
-
No need, I know the gist, I'm not fanatical enough to read and log every last pound shilling and penny.
I'm afraid the paucity of your knowledge affects the authority of your posts.
-
I'm afraid the paucity of your knowledge affects the authority of your posts.
@)(++(* Behave. Nice big words though, well done. 8@??)(
-
You're allowed to ask any question you like, doesn't mean you're obliged to receive an answer. As for the transparency - you got a year of it and when it became apparent that the detail was going to be used as a stick with which to beat the McCanns still further, the fund became more opaque. In any case after a year public donations had dried up. Most of the money came from the litigation and book sales, not from the impoverished tiny kids and OAPs.
So because the money was being used for purposes that could be questioned, they decided to hide the inner workings of the fund?
-
So because the money was being used for purposes that could be questioned, they decided to hide the inner workings of the fund?
That about sums it up !
-
So because the money was being used for purposes that could be questioned, they decided to hide the inner workings of the fund?
If it makes you happy to put it that way then feel free to do so. The McCanns and every aspect of their lives, every move they make, every decision they take has a little army of detractors ready to pounce and criticise and make mischief - people are out to get them (if you don't believe me, see The McCannFundFraud website. This must be very dispiriting and tiring for them. As a donor myself I fully understand why they may have wanted to be less candid than they had been. Perhaps they should have anticipated that by behaving in such a manner they would only stoke the flames of suspicion further.
-
You're allowed to ask any question you like, doesn't mean you're obliged to receive an answer. As for the transparency - you got a year of it and when it became apparent that the detail was going to be used as a stick with which to beat the McCanns still further, the fund became more opaque. In any case after a year public donations had dried up. Most of the money came from the litigation and book sales, not from the impoverished tiny kids and OAPs.
Ah yes, who wielded that stick? The Daily Mail had a go;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
Why fundraise when litigation can be so lucrative? Of course there's a risk factor; they were bound to run into a stubborn one eventually who refused to settle out of court.
-
Ah yes, who wielded that stick? The Daily Mail had a go;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
Why fundraise when litigation can be so lucrative? Of course there's a risk factor; they were bound to rub into a stubborn one eventually who refused to settle out of court.
so in your view the McCanns only litigated to make money and for no other reason, is that it?
-
It would seem you don't though so perhaps a read would inform you?
OK. I've caved in and ploughed through some of the documents linked to by G-Unit. This is what I have discovered.
From the inception of the Fund in 2007 until the end of 2011 there was a clause that stated one of the objectives was to offer assistance to the McCann Family. That is 4 years during which the vast majority (if not all) public donations were made. So, anyone making a donation during this time would know if they cared to look it up, that their donation could be used to assist the McCann family. So as the vast majority of donations were made when this clause was in place there should be no reason for anyone to be disgruntled about the use of Fund money to assist the McCann family in their action against a man who wanted the world to believe Madeleine is dead.
Hope that's clear now.
-
OK. I've caved in and ploughed through some of the documents linked to by G-Unit. This is what I have discovered.
From the inception of the Fund in 2007 until the end of 2011 there was a clause that stated one of the objectives was to offer assistance to the McCann Family. That is 4 years during which the vast majority (if not all) public donations were made. So, anyone making a donation during this time would know if they cared to look it up, that their donation could be used to assist the McCann family. So as the vast majority of donations were made when this clause was in place there should be no reason for anyone to be disgruntled about the use of Fund money to assist the McCann family in their action against a man who wanted the world to believe Madeleine is dead.
Hope that's clear now.
Are you really saying there have been no donations since 2011 ?
-
Are you really saying there have been no donations since 2011 ?
Well according to G-Unit, who's a bit of an expert "donation/web sales are very small over the years ending 2013, 2014 and 2015". That leaves just 2012 we're not sure about, but is there any reason why, when they were not actively asking for donations, that these should have been substantial? Face it Faithliily the vast proportion of public donations were made prior to 2011, and any made after that date were almost certainly from "die-hard" supporters like me @)(++(*
-
Operation Grange was launched in May 2011. Any reason to think that there would have been masses of (unsolicited) public donations that year and in subsequent years?
-
Thank you, Alice.
2B.1.2 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.
Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria reviewed Madeleine's case and reopened it in 2013. In my opinion that is 'job done' as far as thorough investigation goes.
I have no doubt both policing bodies have striven absolutely to apprehend those responsible; do you feel Madeleine's Fund has not met the aim outlined in 2B.1.2 ?; if so ~ in what way do you feel they have been remiss?
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
In my opinion, that is exactly what the PJ and SY are attempting to do. One can only wish them every success as they follow lines of enquiry with the positive outlook that they may be searching for a living child.
**snip
Mr Duthie, who leads Scotland Yard's Homicide and Major Crime Command, told the Evening Standard: "There is ongoing work. There is always a possibility that we will find Madeleine and we hope that we will find her alive.
"That's what we want and that's what the family and the public want and that is why the Home Office continue to fund it. There is work that needs to be done still."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-could-still-be-found-alive-insists-detective/
All in all I think Madeleine's Fund has gone as far towards achieving its stated aims as it would be possible to do.
The important thing is that it has got us to this stage although the ultimate which is the recovery of Madeleine is yet to happen but who is to say it won't enabling the Fund money to be devoted to 2B.2.
Not bad for an allegedly "fraudulent fund".
Who said it was fraudulent? Not I. All I have ever said is it ain't transparent as sold. Any one who believes it is transparent probably believes in Father Christmas and The Easter Bunny as well but that's for them to live with.
I prefer to deal with fact not blx. The latter [blx] includes what a copper may or may not have said which is hardly germane to the running of limited company which seems to be the topic under discussion.
-
If it makes you happy to put it that way then feel free to do so. The McCanns and every aspect of their lives, every move they make, every decision they take has a little army of detractors ready to pounce and criticise and make mischief - people are out to get them (if you don't believe me, see The McCannFundFraud website. This must be very dispiriting and tiring for them. As a donor myself I fully understand why they may have wanted to be less candid than they had been. Perhaps they should have anticipated that by behaving in such a manner they would only stoke the flames of suspicion further.
That is what you implied.
-
That is what you implied.
what is what I implied?
-
Who said it was fraudulent? Not I. All I have ever said is it ain't transparent as sold. Any one who believes it is transparent probably believes in Father Christmas and The Easter Bunny as well but that's for them to live with.
I prefer to deal with fact not blx. The latter [blx] includes what a copper may or may not have said which is hardly germane to the running of limited company which seems to be the topic under discussion.
Goncalo Amaral said so ~ or insinuated, if you prefer ...
The Truth of the Lie
Chapter 18
**snip
During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-18.html
... and despite his concerns 'the company' has been and is run well within all lawful parameters ~ unless you know to the contrary.
-
Goncalo Amaral said so ~ or insinuated, if you prefer ...
The Truth of the Lie
Chapter 18
**snip
During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-18.html
... and despite his concerns 'the company' has been and is run well within all lawful parameters ~ unless you know to the contrary.
How do we know the company has been 'well.run' Brietta ?
That is merely opinion.
-
Goncalo Amaral said so ~ or insinuated, if you prefer ...
The Truth of the Lie
Chapter 18
**snip
During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-18.html
... and despite his concerns 'the company' has been and is run well within all lawful parameters ~ unless you know to the contrary.
He isn't saying or insinuating that the Fund is fraudulent full stop. He's saying that IF the parents have committed a crime concerning their daughter's disappearance THEN it would be fraudulent. The same applies if someone else committed the crime and they knew about it.
It would be irrelevant how it was run, IF the reason for setting it up was false, and IF those setting it up knew that, they would have committed fraud.
-
He isn't saying or insinuating that the Fund is fraudulent full stop. He's saying that IF the parents have committed a crime concerning their daughter's disappearance THEN it would be fraudulent. The same applies if someone else committed the crime and they knew about it.
It would be irrelevant how it was run, IF the reason for setting it up was false, and IF those setting it up knew that, they would have committed fraud.
Indeed, pretty plain to see really
-
How do we know the company has been 'well.run' Brietta ?
That is merely opinion.
Read it again, Stephen.
While I have absolutely no doubt that Madeleine's Fund has been "well run" ... what I actually said was "run well within all lawful parameters".
-
Well according to G-Unit, who's a bit of an expert "donation/web sales are very small over the years ending 2013, 2014 and 2015". That leaves just 2012 we're not sure about, but is there any reason why, when they were not actively asking for donations, that these should have been substantial? Face it Faithliily the vast proportion of public donations were made prior to 2011, and any made after that date were almost certainly from "die-hard" supporters like me @)(++(*
Not actively asking for donation? There's still a donate button on the website. How can that be considered not to be 'actively' seeking donations?
My point still stands. The McCanns have publicly stated, and clarified over the years, the aims of the fund and what donations had actually been used for. At no time did they include libel litigation against Amaral in those statements. It really isn't hard to speculate why.
-
Not actively asking for donation? There's still a donate button on the website. How can that be considered not to be 'actively' seeking donations?
My point still stands. The McCanns have publicly stated, and clarified over the years, the aims of the fund and what donations had actually been used for. At no time did they include libel litigation against Amaral in those statements. It really isn't hard to speculate why.
No, the McCanns have not actively asked for donations. They have not made recent public appeals for money. When was the last time they linked to their donate button on FB for example?
You can speculate all you like, the fact is you have failed to provide one iota of evidence that there are thousands, hundreds or even dozens of disgruntled and unhappy genuine donors to the Madeleine Fund who resent their donations being spent on litigation.
-
It is exactly as it goes
I had just downloaded the book today and noted that statement. She hasn't been found so any fund set up to find her has NOT been done fraudulently. I could imagine there were other reasons some people in the room went pale.
FRAUD OR ABUSE OF TRUST?
During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
-
No, the McCanns have not actively asked for donations. They have not made recent public appeals for money. When was the last time they linked to their donate button on FB for example?
You can speculate all you like, the fact is you have failed to provide one iota of evidence that there are thousands, hundreds or even dozens of disgruntled and unhappy genuine donors to the Madeleine Fund who resent their donations being spent on litigation.
By providing a donate button on their website the McCanns are actively asking the public for donations. What else would it be there for ?
As to disgruntled donors, how can you feel aggrieved if you don't know you've been deceived ?
-
Mccanns had over a Million pounds earlydays but they were SELLING goods
Why?
-
At least the consensus here is that the fund is not transparent, glad that one was sorted, thanks to alfie lol for saying the fund team were intimidated by a few online posters and uk papers and decided to clam up
So the blame is elsewhere yet again
Have the mccanns ever taken any responsblity in this utter fiasco
or is it always everyone elses fault worldwide
I dont thnk they have
At all
Theres a hilarious mile long list of whose fault it was or could have been
-
At least the consensus here is that the fund is not transparent, glad that one was sorted, thanks to alfie lol for saying the fund team were intimidated by a few online posters and uk papers and decided to clam up
So the blame is elsewhere yet again
Too many of you are concerned about money you didn't donate but are oblivious to the usage of money donated to that other fund.
-
Too many of you are concerned about money you didn't donate but are oblivious to the usage of money donated to that other fund.
Not bothered about 50k donated for a single clear purpose
Obviously you are for some reason
Andwhats withthe "too many of you"?
Were not clones you know just like the too many of you arent either
-
By providing a donate button on their website the McCanns are actively asking the public for donations. What else would it be there for ?
As to disgruntled donors, how can you feel aggrieved if you don't know you've been deceived ?
How do You know they've been allegedly deceived then?
As for the donate button on their website, yes it's still there and was set up many years ago. If anyone wants to donate to the Fund that's the means of doing so but it is not making a public appeal for donations, you know damn well what I mean. In the same way that there is a donate button on the Children In Need website, but there is a public appeal only once a year. https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk/fundraisinghub
-
I had just downloaded the book today and noted that statement. She hasn't been found so any fund set up to find her has NOT been done fraudulently. I could imagine there were other reasons some people in the room went pale.
I find it hard to believe that people have never encountered conditional statements. If A is true then B is also true. If A is false then it follows that B is also false. It's a commonly used logical argument.
So the fund is fraudulent ONLY IF the McCanns were criminally involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Otherwise it's not. That's the logical argument Amaral used;
"If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine."
Amaral, in this passage from his book, therefore, DID NOT say the parents were guilty. He DID NOT say the Fund was fraudulent.
Your statement, on the other hand is illogical. The fact that Madeleine has not been found has no relevance to the status of the Fund, because the reason she is missing could lie with her parents.
-
I find it hard to believe that people have never encountered conditional statements. If A is true then B is also true. If A is false then it follows that B is also false. It's a commonly used logical argument.
So the fund is fraudulent ONLY IF the McCanns were criminally involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Otherwise it's not. That's the logical argument Amaral used;
"If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine."
Amaral, in this passage from his book, therefore, DID NOT say the parents were guilty. He DID NOT say the Fund was fraudulent.
Your statement, on the other hand is illogical. The fact that Madeleine has not been found has no relevance to the status of the Fund, because the reason she is missing could lie with her parents.
Simple question: does Amaral's book conclude that the parents hid Madeleine's body - yes or no?
-
Simple question: does Amaral's book conclude that the parents hid Madeleine's body - yes or no?
Simple? Yes. Related to the passage under discussion? No.
If you wish to discuss a different passage please post the extract you wish to discuss.
-
Simple? Yes. Related to the passage under discussion? No.
If you wish to discuss a different passage please post the extract you wish to discuss.
It is somewhat disingenuous IMO to claim that Amaral is NOT accusing the McCanns of setting up a fraudulent fund, when he concludes in his book that they hid their child's body, but there we go.
-
It is somewhat disingenuous IMO to claim that Amaral is NOT accusing the McCanns of setting up a fraudulent fund, when he concludes in his book that they hid their child's body, but there we go.
and how do you know they didnt ( not saying they did??) but as a police officer GA had the right to think what he wanted he was there not you
-
and how do you know they didnt ( not saying they did??) but as a police officer GA had the right to think what he wanted he was there not you
What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent. for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!! It beggars belief really....
-
At least the consensus here is that the fund is not transparent, glad that one was sorted, thanks to alfie lol for saying the fund team were intimidated by a few online posters and uk papers and decided to clam up
So the blame is elsewhere yet again
Have the mccanns ever taken any responsblity in this utter fiasco
or is it always everyone elses fault worldwide
I dont thnk they have
At all
Theres a hilarious mile long list of whose fault it was or could have been
For those who have taken the trouble to read the financial statements associated with No Stone Unturned Limited they must come as a bit of a let down. They contain the absolute minimum as required by UK law and leave people asking more questions than there are answers.
-
What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent. for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!! It beggars belief really....
Considering the book is a hypothesis and not a statement of fact, then the conditional statement SiL presented does not say it is fraudulent.
-
What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent. for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!! It beggars belief really....
I will agree with you that Amaral thought the fund was set up for reasons other than to search for Madeleine. Recent events have shown that to be the case surely?
-
I will agree with you that Amaral thought the fund was set up for reasons other than to search for Madeleine. Recent events have shown that to be the case surely?
so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns?? GA being a police officer it was his job to have a opinion was it not?
-
I suppose it's natural to ask people you know and trust to be directors, but the drawback is they can later be seen as overly sympathetic.
In certain circumstances yes but the only truly way in which a fund like this, which was created in order to accept the many donations which were being made by the public, was to do what was promised at the outset and that was total transparency. Nine years on however a cloak of secrecy has descended over the fund giving rise to claims that it has lost its way and is being used to fund activities for which it was never conceived. Does that about sum it up?
-
so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns?? GA being a police officer it was his job to have a opinion was it not?
We have to be careful not to confuse what was written in his book as against what he has stated in subsequent press interviews.
-
What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent. for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!! It beggars belief really....
If you read the passage quoted and you understand the concept of conditional statements he did not. He may have said it elsewhere in his book; a quote showing an unequivocal statement rather than a conditional statement is all that is needed.
-
Goncalo Amaral said so ~ or insinuated, if you prefer ...
The Truth of the Lie
Chapter 18
**snip
During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.
If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-18.html
... and despite his concerns 'the company' has been and is run well within all lawful parameters ~ unless you know to the contrary.
Being fundamentally polite of nature I did reply to this.
For some inexplicable reason one of Cerberus' heads decided to delete the reply.
That hardly seems a rational response, however cutting to the chase the thrust of my post was that you should try to learn about "the conditional".
All yours Cerberus............. ?{)(**
-
For those who have taken the trouble to read the financial statements associated with No Stone Unturned Limited they must come as a bit of a let down. They contain the absolute minimum as required by UK law and leave people asking more questions than there are answers.
IMO the only people who felt 'let down' were those who were gleefully anticipating a whole new McCann bashing fest - via the annual publication of the accounts - where every syllable would be pored over with the sole aim of finding fault. The limited amount of information somewhat curtailed their 'fun'.
The shrieks of indignation from some which ensue because of that - remind me of toddlers having a tantrum because their dummy has been taken away.
AIMHO of course.
-
How do You know they've been allegedly deceived then?
As for the donate button on their website, yes it's still there and was set up many years ago. If anyone wants to donate to the Fund that's the means of doing so but it is not making a public appeal for donations, you know damn well what I mean. In the same way that there is a donate button on the Children In Need website, but there is a public appeal only once a year. https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk/fundraisinghub
They had however promised that the fund would be transparent and it is clearly not.
As to your second point if they are asking for donations, whether it's a public announcement or via a donate button on their website, they are actively seeking donations. That you fail to acknowledge that face is frankly your problem.
-
so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns?? GA being a police officer it was his job to have a opinion was it not?
I'm not upset about a thing dear Carly, I am simply engaging in an online conversation. A police officer is paid to have an opinion, but not to publicly accuse without supporting evidence or to make a career out doing so.
-
IMO the only people who felt 'let down' were those who were gleefully anticipating a whole new McCann bashing fest - via the annual publication of the accounts - where every syllable would be pored over with the sole aim of finding fault. The limited amount of information somewhat curtailed their 'fun'.
The shrieks of indignation from some which ensue because of that - remind me of toddlers having a tantrum because their dummy has been taken away.
AIMHO of course.
Yet THEY PROMISED open and transparent accounts. 8)-)))
-
They had however promised that the fund would be transparent and it is clearly not.
As to your second point if they are asking for donations, whether it's a public announcement or via a donate button on their website, they are actively seeking donations. That you fail to acknowledge that face is frankly your problem.
Deceit is deceit, whether by omission or not. The McCanns made it clear for the first 4 years of the Fund that it would be used to aid and support them personally. What you seem to be suggesting is that the McCanns deliberately removed the clause in order to deceive future donors about where their donations were going. What sense does that make?
-
Deceit is deceit, whether by omission or not. The McCanns made it clear for the first 4 years of the Fund that it would be used to aid and support them personally. What you seem to be suggesting is that the McCanns deliberately removed the clause in order to deceive future donors about where their donations were going. What sense does that make?
Please point out where I mention the removed clause?
-
As G-Unit has agreed, the book concludes with a statement of fact - that the McCanns hid their child's body, so don't give me more disingenuous claptrap, thanks.
I just love the way you read my posts and misunderstand them completely. I agreed no such thing. I asked for an unequivocal statement from Amaral saying the Fund was fraudulent.
Does using the word 'probably' indicate a statement of fact? I think it leaves room for the statement to be proved wrong.
Probably;
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
-
so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns?? GA being a police officer it was his job to have a opinion was it not?
It was his job to follow the evidence irrespective of personal prejudices ... much as it will be the job of the auditors of the Madeleine Fund to scrutinise what comes in and what goes out of the fund.
In my opinion that would be inclusive of the £266,000 allegedly "gone" from the Madeleine's Fund so no doubt all will be revealed as it is on an annual basis when the accounts are published.
Contrasting with any information at all re the public subscriptions which have kept Mr Amaral's litigious boat afloat.
The case he lost against Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia proved a financial setback for him ~ wonder how that was paid off? Even if we were really interested, we'll never know, will we?
-
I just love the way you read my posts and misunderstand them completely. I agreed no such thing. I asked for an unequivocal statement from Amaral saying the Fund was fraudulent.
Does using the word 'probably' indicate a statement of fact? I think it leaves room for the statement to be proved wrong.
Probably;
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
I think we can conclude that a career in contract law would not be a good move for Alfie.
-
I just love the way you read my posts and misunderstand them completely. I agreed no such thing. I asked for an unequivocal statement from Amaral saying the Fund was fraudulent.
Does using the word 'probably' indicate a statement of fact? I think it leaves room for the statement to be proved wrong.
Probably;
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
I asked you:
Simple question: does Amaral's book conclude that the parents hid Madeleine's body - yes or no?
You replied:
Simple? Yes.
Where have I twisted what you said?
-
We appear to have a sort of inverse version of Godwin's Law on here.
What is the minimum time on any thread before Grime, Amaral or Cipriano are mentioned ?
-
I'm not upset about a thing dear Carly, I am simply engaging in an online conversation. A police officer is paid to have an opinion, but not to publicly accuse without supporting evidence or to make a career out doing so.
In this instance it is yet to be ruled on by the Supreme Court.
-
Please point out where I mention the removed clause?
My humble apologies. That was G-Unit. But surely you agree that a clause was removed? Why do you think it was, if the intent was to then go on and con the public into paying for their legal fees? Why not just cover their arses by keeping the clause in?
-
My humble apologies. That was G-Unit. But surely you agree that a clause was removed? Why do you think it was, if the intent was to then go on and con the public into paying for their legal fees? Why not just cover their arses by keeping the clause in?
Yes I agree that a clause was removed. As to the reason I wouldn't presume to speculate. I'm sure however that the remaining objectives could be 'interpretated' to justify the ongoing use of the fund for litigation purposes.
-
I asked you:
Simple question: does Amaral's book conclude that the parents hid Madeleine's body - yes or no?
You replied:
Simple? Yes.
Where have I twisted what you said?
I didn't say you twisted anything, I said you misunderstood my post when you said I agreed with you when I most definitely didn't.
-
IMO the only people who felt 'let down' were those who were gleefully anticipating a whole new McCann bashing fest - via the annual publication of the accounts - where every syllable would be pored over with the sole aim of finding fault. The limited amount of information somewhat curtailed their 'fun'.
The shrieks of indignation from some which ensue because of that - remind me of toddlers having a tantrum because their dummy has been taken away.
AIMHO of course.
So it OK with you for them to declare one thing and then do something else with publicly donated funds?
Do you accept that their inability apparent unwillingness to keep the public fully I formed on a regular basis is contrary to best practice in such cases?
-
One could say that the frivolous waste of funds on other adventures have seriously impacted on the ability to undertake a proper search. Has anyone considered that the money was given to Madeleine and should have been used solely to find her? Yet another reason why directors of the fund should have been totally independent.
-
One could say that the frivolous waste of funds on other adventures have seriously impacted on the ability to undertake a proper search. Has anyone considered that the money was given to Madeleine and should have been used solely to find her? Yet another reason why directors of the fund should have been totally independent.
The money was not given to Madeleine - it was given to her family. For 4 years donors gave on the understanding the the money could be used to assist the family, as spelt out in the Fund details. You may not like it, but them's the facts.
-
I didn't misunderstand anything. I said you agreed with me that Amaral's book concludes that the McCanns hid Madeleine's body, you've confirmed that you did, what games are you playing here?
Are you serious? The book said 'probably'. That's a qualifying word.
-
Ah yes, who wielded that stick? The Daily Mail had a go;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
Why fundraise when litigation can be so lucrative? Of course there's a risk factor; they were bound to run into a stubborn one eventually who refused to settle out of court.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The McCanns have sued and sued and the media have fallen over themselves to cough up without going into battle in the libel courts. No doubt they thought Amaral would similarly roll over and agree to settle out of court. Weren't they so wrong and now it could very well be them who has to cough up.
-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The McCanns have sued and sued and the media have fallen over themselves to cough up without going into battle in the libel courts. No doubt they thought Amaral would similarly roll over and agree to settle out of court. Weren't they so wrong and now it could very well be them who has to cough up.
The arrogance of the McCanns and the belief that others should pay for what they did wrong has probe their undoing.
-
This topic has now been edited. Several off topic posts will be moved to new topics.
Posters are again reminded not to post material which breaches forum rules. TY
-
Anyway ~ have I missed the answer to my query asking where the story about the £266,000 originated?
Your query seems to have disappeared, but I'll help you out;
The McCanns’ fun stands at £480,000 but they face a £434,000 libel to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1694829/kate-and-gerry-mccann-dump-long-serving-spokesman-in-bid-to-cut-spiralling-costs-of-hunt-for-missing-tot/
Sorry about the missing letters and words, but we have to make allowances for the Sun, I suppose.
As at 31 March 2015 the Fund had £746,152 - £480,000 = £266,152
No country has cause to be embarrassed about a decision made by it's judges in accordance with it's laws.
Portugal has been criticised by the ECHR in the past for suppressing freedom of expression, however, so it could be criticised again if it upholds the McCann claim.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html
-
Your query seems to have disappeared, but I'll help you out;
The McCanns’ fun stands at £480,000 but they face a £434,000 libel to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1694829/kate-and-gerry-mccann-dump-long-serving-spokesman-in-bid-to-cut-spiralling-costs-of-hunt-for-missing-tot/
Sorry about the missing letters and words, but we have to make allowances for the Sun, I suppose.
As at 31 March 2015 the Fund had £746,152 - £480,000 = £266,152
No country has cause to be embarrassed about a decision made by it's judges in accordance with it's laws.
Portugal has been criticised by the ECHR in the past for suppressing freedom of expression, however, so it could be criticised again if it upholds the McCann claim.
http://ipi.freemedia.at/newssview/article/ipi-report-highlights-need-for-defamation-reform-in-portugal.html
By Faithlilly's rules of engagement, without a bonafide named source for the information concnerning the amount remaining in the fund, we cannot take this information at face value. It was probably made up by the tabloid to sell papers. Isn't that the usual mantra?
-
By Faithlilly's rules of engagement, without a bonafide named source for the information concnerning the amount remaining in the fund, we cannot take this information at face value. It was probably made up by the tabloid to sell papers. Isn't that the usual mantra?
I wouldn't be at all surprised Alfie. I was just providing some information for someone else.
-
So it OK with you for them to declare one thing and then do something else with publicly donated funds?
Do you accept that their inability apparent unwillingness to keep the public fully I formed on a regular basis is contrary to best practice in such cases?
And does The Amaral Fund use best practice?
He just hides everything, whilst The Mccann Fund publishes figures.
-
And does The Amaral Fund use best practice?
He just hides everything, whilst The Mccann Fund publishes figures.
Is the amaral defence fund a private limted co? Or any type that the PT authorities or general public would be interested in? any legal requirement they bemade public?Had anyone runnng it made promses and reneged on them? Is there any evidence that accounts havebeen HIDDEN?
Has it Had mllions in?
Has it had more than one raisondetre?
Hardly comparable and pretty low grade argument
Besides you avoided answering the question and used another question, very deflecting and telling.
-
seems not everyone................ has not got the begging bowl out
Riddle of misinformation as media reports McCanns. "down to their last €72,000"
Portugal Resident
5 September 2016
All kinds of misinformation appears to be surfacing as the countdown begins on whether (or not) the Metropolitan Police search for Madeleine McCann is really due to end Click here.
The most bizarre detail appeared in Portugal’s national tabloid Correio da Manhã on Sunday, suggesting the McCanns were “reduced to €72,000” in a Fund that in its heyday had raked in close to €5 million.
The reasons, claims CM, are “travel expenses, payments to detective agencies and a €500,000 claim for damages from former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral”, whose appeal against the €1.2 million civil suit lodged by the McCanns was upheld earlier this year Click here.
This last ‘reason’ for the depletion of the massive fund instantly set tongues wagging on various ‘Madeleine sites’ online.
No-one appears to have been aware of any kind of counter-claim by Amaral.
The truth is the ‘news’ is a red-herring.
The Resident has been in touch with the man whom the McCanns have been pursuing in court since 2009 and he told us he had “stopped reading Correio de Manhã years ago”.
“I don’t know what they are talking about,” he said. “The problems of the McCanns are their own,” he added. “I am not interested in their lives.”
But Amaral stressed that he has not asked for “any kind of compensation” - let alone €500,000.
“In my new book I touch on these subjects,” he told us, referring to the book he began writing when the Met’s multi-million pound Operation Grange investigation began Click here.
“But at this point in time, I have nothing to say.”
Amaral has always been a man who measured his words, and he has never had a press spokesman - as the McCanns have had throughout their nine-year ordeal.
Mainstream media reported last month that because of their current purported money troubles, the couple have decided to drop Clarence Mitchell as their media spokesperson.
But bystanders on fora dedicated to discovering the truth of what happened to the missing toddler have suggested the new ‘running-out-of-money stories’ could be a precursor to declaring that the McCanns will be unable to pay any kind of expenses on the legal horizon.
“I don’t know if this is just another publicity stunt,” said Jill Havern, who runs one of the many Madeleine online fora. “It was in the press a while ago that the McCanns were moving some money from the search fund in order to pay for future searches! People donated to the Madeleine Fund purely to search for her, not for legal bills, but that inconvenient truth appears to have been lost in all the PR nonsense.”
Certainly, there is a moral issue as to whether the Fund should be used for legal expenses as shortly after its inception, former trustee Esther McVey stressed the “spirit which underlies the generous donations” which she felt trustees had the “responsibility to steer” Click here.
McVey resigned from the Fund shortly after making this statement.
Meantime, eyes now are on October 5 - the date media sources claim could see an end to the Met’s long-running investigation that this far appears to have spent in excess of €15 million of British taxpayers’ money.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/riddle-of-misinformation-as-media-reports-mccanns-%E2%80%9Cdown-to-their-last-%E2%82%AC72000%E2%80%9D
-
seems not everyone................ has not got the begging bowl out
Riddle of misinformation as media reports McCanns. "down to their last €72,000"
Portugal Resident
5 September 2016
All kinds of misinformation appears to be surfacing as the countdown begins on whether (or not) the Metropolitan Police search for Madeleine McCann is really due to end Click here.
The most bizarre detail appeared in Portugal’s national tabloid Correio da Manhã on Sunday, suggesting the McCanns were “reduced to €72,000” in a Fund that in its heyday had raked in close to €5 million.
The reasons, claims CM, are “travel expenses, payments to detective agencies and a €500,000 claim for damages from former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral”, whose appeal against the €1.2 million civil suit lodged by the McCanns was upheld earlier this year Click here.
This last ‘reason’ for the depletion of the massive fund instantly set tongues wagging on various ‘Madeleine sites’ online.
No-one appears to have been aware of any kind of counter-claim by Amaral.
The truth is the ‘news’ is a red-herring.
The Resident has been in touch with the man whom the McCanns have been pursuing in court since 2009 and he told us he had “stopped reading Correio de Manhã years ago”.
“I don’t know what they are talking about,” he said. “The problems of the McCanns are their own,” he added. “I am not interested in their lives.”
But Amaral stressed that he has not asked for “any kind of compensation” - let alone €500,000.
“In my new book I touch on these subjects,” he told us, referring to the book he began writing when the Met’s multi-million pound Operation Grange investigation began Click here.
“But at this point in time, I have nothing to say.”
Amaral has always been a man who measured his words, and he has never had a press spokesman - as the McCanns have had throughout their nine-year ordeal.
Mainstream media reported last month that because of their current purported money troubles, the couple have decided to drop Clarence Mitchell as their media spokesperson.
But bystanders on fora dedicated to discovering the truth of what happened to the missing toddler have suggested the new ‘running-out-of-money stories’ could be a precursor to declaring that the McCanns will be unable to pay any kind of expenses on the legal horizon.
“I don’t know if this is just another publicity stunt,” said Jill Havern, who runs one of the many Madeleine online fora. “It was in the press a while ago that the McCanns were moving some money from the search fund in order to pay for future searches! People donated to the Madeleine Fund purely to search for her, not for legal bills, but that inconvenient truth appears to have been lost in all the PR nonsense.”
Certainly, there is a moral issue as to whether the Fund should be used for legal expenses as shortly after its inception, former trustee Esther McVey stressed the “spirit which underlies the generous donations” which she felt trustees had the “responsibility to steer” Click here.
McVey resigned from the Fund shortly after making this statement.
Meantime, eyes now are on October 5 - the date media sources claim could see an end to the Met’s long-running investigation that this far appears to have spent in excess of €15 million of British taxpayers’ money.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/riddle-of-misinformation-as-media-reports-mccanns-%E2%80%9Cdown-to-their-last-%E2%82%AC72000%E2%80%9D
I believe the Sun was ready to print a story headlined "Maddie cop's sick secret" a few months ago. Perhaps that served as a warning to GA not to even contemplate suing anyone now?
-
I believe the Sun was ready to print a story headlined "Maddie cop's sick secret" a few months ago. Perhaps that served as a warning to GA not to even contemplate suing anyone now?
In what way?
-
In what way?
We have no idea what information the newspaper editors are sitting on, just waiting for the green light to publish.
However, while an appeal is pending & official lines of inquiry continue, it would be inconsiderate, at the very least, to start throwing spanners into the works.
-
I believe the Sun was ready to print a story headlined "Maddie cop's sick secret" a few months ago. Perhaps that served as a warning to GA not to even contemplate suing anyone now?
you believe....oh right
would think you should no by now G A doesn't do warnings ....or take them............either way
as for suing the mccs ...unlike them he has nothing to prove ......
what happened to maddie is his main concern ...............not suing people ......
-
We have no idea what information the newspaper editors are sitting on, just waiting for the green light to publish.
However, while an appeal is pending & official lines of inquiry continue, it would be inconsiderate, at the very least, to start throwing spanners into the works.
The appeal will have absolutely no effect on the ongoing enquiry, just like the preceding rulings and do you really think anything printed in a British tabloid could have any effect on an appeal that will be judged on a point of Portuguese law?
-
Are you accusing someone of something? Unless you can back it up I think you should stop now.
This whole thread is based on the hypothetical assumption that £266,000 has been removed from the McCann Fund for an unknown purpose.
Can you back that up?
-
This whole thread is based on the hypothetical assumption that £266,000 has been removed from the McCann Fund for an unknown purpose.
Can you back that up?
As I didn't make the assumptions I'm not required to back them up. I have no idea what the balance of Madeleine's Fund is at the present time.
If you wish to discuss the credibility of the newspaper articles which made the assumptions about the remaining amount in the Fund a new thread may be required. This thread is discussing the possible expenditure arising from those figures, not whether the alleged figures are correct.
-
As I didn't make the assumptions I'm not required to back them up. I have no idea what the balance of Madeleine's Fund is at the present time.
If you wish to discuss the credibility of the newspaper articles which made the assumptions about the remaining amount in the Fund a new thread may be required. This thread is discussing the possible expenditure arising from those figures, not whether the alleged figures are correct.
I seem to remember in the first few months the donations total was displayed on the Find Madeleine website. I wonder why this was discontinued ?
-
seems not everyone................ has not got the begging bowl out
Riddle of misinformation as media reports McCanns. "down to their last €72,000"
Portugal Resident
5 September 2016
All kinds of misinformation appears to be surfacing as the countdown begins on whether (or not) the Metropolitan Police search for Madeleine McCann is really due to end Click here.
The most bizarre detail appeared in Portugal’s national tabloid Correio da Manhã on Sunday, suggesting the McCanns were “reduced to €72,000” in a Fund that in its heyday had raked in close to €5 million.
The reasons, claims CM, are “travel expenses, payments to detective agencies and a €500,000 claim for damages from former PJ detective Gonçalo Amaral”, whose appeal against the €1.2 million civil suit lodged by the McCanns was upheld earlier this year Click here.
This last ‘reason’ for the depletion of the massive fund instantly set tongues wagging on various ‘Madeleine sites’ online.
No-one appears to have been aware of any kind of counter-claim by Amaral.
The truth is the ‘news’ is a red-herring.
The Resident has been in touch with the man whom the McCanns have been pursuing in court since 2009 and he told us he had “stopped reading Correio de Manhã years ago”.
“I don’t know what they are talking about,” he said. “The problems of the McCanns are their own,” he added. “I am not interested in their lives.”
But Amaral stressed that he has not asked for “any kind of compensation” - let alone €500,000.
“In my new book I touch on these subjects,” he told us, referring to the book he began writing when the Met’s multi-million pound Operation Grange investigation began Click here.
“But at this point in time, I have nothing to say.”
Amaral has always been a man who measured his words, and he has never had a press spokesman - as the McCanns have had throughout their nine-year ordeal.
Mainstream media reported last month that because of their current purported money troubles, the couple have decided to drop Clarence Mitchell as their media spokesperson.
But bystanders on fora dedicated to discovering the truth of what happened to the missing toddler have suggested the new ‘running-out-of-money stories’ could be a precursor to declaring that the McCanns will be unable to pay any kind of expenses on the legal horizon.
“I don’t know if this is just another publicity stunt,” said Jill Havern, who runs one of the many Madeleine online fora. “It was in the press a while ago that the McCanns were moving some money from the search fund in order to pay for future searches! People donated to the Madeleine Fund purely to search for her, not for legal bills, but that inconvenient truth appears to have been lost in all the PR nonsense.”
Certainly, there is a moral issue as to whether the Fund should be used for legal expenses as shortly after its inception, former trustee Esther McVey stressed the “spirit which underlies the generous donations” which she felt trustees had the “responsibility to steer” Click here.
McVey resigned from the Fund shortly after making this statement.
Meantime, eyes now are on October 5 - the date media sources claim could see an end to the Met’s long-running investigation that this far appears to have spent in excess of €15 million of British taxpayers’ money.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/riddle-of-misinformation-as-media-reports-mccanns-%E2%80%9Cdown-to-their-last-%E2%82%AC72000%E2%80%9D
And so the mystery deepens. The FMF could nip all this speculation in the bud if they were to issue a simple statement stating what the true position is.
Is that too much to ask?
As for Gonçalo Amaral, he tells the Portugal Resident that he has not asked for any compensation, let alone €500,000. Thing is though, as of this moment in time he cannot do so since we await the final decision by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Add to this the fact that he is on record stating that he will counter sue for damages.
-
And so the mystery deepens. The FMF could nip all this speculation in the bud if they were to issue a simple statement stating what the true position is.
Is that too much to ask?
As for Gonçalo Amaral, he tells the Portugal Resident that he has not asked for any compensation, let alone €500,000. Thing is though, as of this moment in time he cannot do so since we await the final decision by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Add to this the fact that he is on record stating that he will counter sue for damages.
A certain amount of people are likely to know the balance in the Fund. Either one of those people told the journalist or it was a guess. If the McCanns or the Fund directors corrected every mistake in the media it would probably be a full-time job.
If Amaral wins in the Supreme Court it is then that he will submit any claim he is entitled to.
Amaral has stated his intention to sue, but as you say he can't do anything until this case ends.
-
Can you point me to any other case where the parents of a missing child have within days set up a limited company and surrounded themselves with press agents, PR experts and lawyers in both England and Portugal?
I found this little snippet which might solve why the McCann's had lawyers so early on.
When asked what they were going to do in the near future as to the search for Madeleine Gerry said this -
Gerry: "Obviously, you know, the thrust of the search for Madeleine is the investigation, which we are fully supporting. We have brought in the lawyers, really, to advise us what else can be done. I don't know what that is at the minute. You have seen that the family, and close friends back home, in contact with us, are doing everything that we feel in our power to keep the publicity high, and that has been our thrust and main actions at this time. We will have to consider that, with the experts advice, and taking advice from all the many different agencies that are involved and really that's why we can't do that on our own."
-
I found this little snippet which might solve why the McCann's had lawyers so early on.
When asked what they were going to do in the near future as to the search for Madeleine Gerry said this -
Gerry: "Obviously, you know, the thrust of the search for Madeleine is the investigation, which we are fully supporting. We have brought in the lawyers, really, to advise us what else can be done. I don't know what that is at the minute. You have seen that the family, and close friends back home, in contact with us, are doing everything that we feel in our power to keep the publicity high, and that has been our thrust and main actions at this time. We will have to consider that, with the experts advice, and taking advice from all the many different agencies that are involved and really that's why we can't do that on our own."
That statement was made on Monday 14th May. I think Gerry knew very well what the lawyers had advised them to do. They were hot-footing it back to London as he spoke to set up the fighting Fund, apply for Ward of Court Status for Madeleine and whatever else IFLG did. He doesn't mention Control Risks group, who came with IFLG. Did he bring them in too? Kate gives the impression in her book that they just appeared as if by magic. Nevertheless they made new statements to them the day before. Jane Hill's attempts to ask about Private Investigators at the same News Conference were ignored.
I notice the poster I'm replying to didn't provide a cite. I have followed their example.
-
That statement was made on Monday 14th May. I think Gerry knew very well what the lawyers had advised them to do. They were hot-footing it back to London as he spoke to set up the fighting Fund, apply for Ward of Court Status for Madeleine and whatever else IFLG did. He doesn't mention Control Risks group, who came with IFLG. Did he bring them in too? Kate gives the impression in her book that they just appeared as if by magic. Nevertheless they made new statements to them the day before. Jane Hill's attempts to ask about Private Investigators at the same News Conference were ignored.
I notice the poster I'm replying to didn't provide a cite. I have followed their example.
The McCanns' PDL Media Statements
A collection of the media statements given by the McCanns, or on behalf of the McCanns, during their time in Praia da Luz
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
Might I suggest you continue your good practice of sourcing your statements and lead by example ... no doubt had you asked Ferryman Lace would have corrected his/her omission.
Sorry FM %£&)**#
-
That statement was made on Monday 14th May. I think Gerry knew very well what the lawyers had advised them to do. They were hot-footing it back to London as he spoke to set up the fighting Fund, apply for Ward of Court Status for Madeleine and whatever else IFLG did. He doesn't mention Control Risks group, who came with IFLG. Did he bring them in too? Kate gives the impression in her book that they just appeared as if by magic. Nevertheless they made new statements to them the day before. Jane Hill's attempts to ask about Private Investigators at the same News Conference were ignored.
I notice the poster I'm replying to didn't provide a cite. I have followed their example.
So what do you not agree with? That they shouldn't have taken the advice? The thing is you and I have never lost a child, also they lost Madeleine abroad, of course they had these people, who probably offered their services to them, of course they took advice they wouldn't have known what to do would they?
-
The McCanns' PDL Media Statements
A collection of the media statements given by the McCanns, or on behalf of the McCanns, during their time in Praia da Luz
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
Might I suggest you continue your good practice of sourcing your statements and lead by example ... no doubt had you asked Ferryman Lace would have corrected his/her omission.
%£&)**#
Thank you Brietta. I have tried leading by example ever since I joined the Forum and sadly it has had no effect whatsoever. Not only that, but on the odd occasion when I have neglected to add a source I have been picked up for it.
Therefore I'm now adopting the policy of ''when in Rome''.
I was replying to Lace, I think, by the way, but the last time I asked ferryman for a cite he/she said 'can't be bothered' and 'done it before'
Posting about the lawyers is on topic I hope? They did advise setting up the fighting fund which is alleged to be so depleted.
-
Thank you Brietta. I have tried leading by example ever since I joined the Forum and sadly it has had no effect whatsoever. Not only that, but on the odd occasion when I have neglected to add a source I have been picked up for it.
Therefore I'm now adopting the policy of ''when in Rome''.
I was replying to Lace, I think, by the way, but the last time I asked ferryman for a cite he/she said 'can't be bothered' and 'done it before'
Posting about the lawyers is on topic I hope? They did advise setting up the fighting fund which is alleged to be so depleted.
I do apologise I saw the link on another topic and had been looking for it, sorry.
-
So what do you not agree with? That they shouldn't have taken the advice? The thing is you and I have never lost a child, also they lost Madeleine abroad, of course they had these people, who probably offered their services to them, of course they took advice they wouldn't have known what to do would they?
I have no problem with them taking advice. I do have a problem when such a straightforward matter is made opaque.
The lawyers arrived on Friday afternoon, the 11th, on spec; according to Kate.
One of the offers of help we’d received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s. He worked for a firm specializing in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG). It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities.
[Madeleine]
They quickly understood what the lawyers could do because two days later IFLG released this;
13 May 2007
Embargo: None
Media Release
Last week, Gerry and Kate McCann instructed The International Family Law Group, London specialist lawyers in child abduction and international family law, together with Michael Nicholls QC of 1 Hare Court, to help them in the search for Madeleine. They have been visiting the family in Portugal.
Gerry and Kate are very grateful for all the support and generous offers of help that they are receiving. Details of how contributions can be made to help get Madeleine back to the safety of her own family will be made available in the next couple of days.
Not only had they hired IFLG, they had a barrister too. Not to mention CRG who came along with IFLG;
By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks
[Madeleine]
That was a busy weekend! It was Madeleine's birthday on the Saturday too. I would have thought an international company like IFLG would have used ISO 8601, which places Friday and Sunday in the same week, but apparently not.
-
I do apologise I saw the link on another topic and had been looking for it, sorry.
Not a problem Lace, I can usually find the source as I did with yours. It's the ones I can't find which are frustrating because then I have to ask.