Is there any transparency with the Gonçalo Amaral fund?

[Benice]

benice.

What does full and open disclosure of the utilization of the funds mean ?

Is that a comment on Amaral's fund?   It is his fund that is the topic of this thread.

[faithlilly]

If you were unable to provide empirical proof of X to a court's satisfaction, does that mean that the court ruled that X has been proven to be false?

Surely when making their claim the McCanns based that claim on something other than subjective reasoning ? Why didn't they present that evidence to the court ?

[stephen25000]

Is that a comment on Amaral's fund?   It is his fund that is the topic of this thread.

It is you and others who have been making comparisons to the mccanns, and the LIE they said in promising FULL DISCLOSURE.

[Brietta]

Isn't it up to those making an assertion to produce evidence to support it? If insufficient evidence is produced the assertion is not proven. Had someone asserted that the book didn't impede the search, it would have been up to them to prove that assertion. Two different things.

The fact that there is no evidence in the public domain of 

(a)  the amount in the fund 

(b)  no indication of how the solicited donations have been spent 

(c)  no way for any member of the public to get access to information on the aforementioned

  ... tends to support the assertion that the fund is secretive and without transparency.


A demonstration of the transparency of the Goncalo Amaral fund should be easily achieved if you are able to give any information to the contrary.

[Carana]

Surely when making their claim the McCanns based that claim on something other than subjective reasoning ? Why didn't they present that evidence to the court ?

Does that mean that you agree if X is considered to be not proven, that it doesn't equate to X being proven as false?

In the UK, and no doubt in several other countries, asserting that your child is dead without any proof and that you are perfectly aware of it and covered it up (i.e., engaging in criminal activity), is likely to be considered not only defamatory, but likely to impede the search for your child: why continue to be vigilant about a potentially living child who - you've been told by an authoratiive figure on umpteen occasions - died on the night of the disappearance?

In Portugal, you have to provide proof. What proof of damage to the search would you present if you were in that situation?

[Benice]

One has to wonder how sceptics have managed to criticise the McCann accounts so prolifically every year if there is no transparency.

Speaking as a contributor I have no complaints about the transparency of the accounts - and IMO the only reason sceptics are so disappointed that the accounts don't show how every penny has been spent is because they have been deprived of even more ammunition to use and abuse the McCanns with.

All I would say to anyone claiming that 'McCann bashing'  is not their only interest in having more detailed accounts is........ 'Pull the other one'.......       IMO the fact that not a single word of approval has ever been uttered by sceptics re the accounts is proof of that.

As far as know there is no reason why Amaral cannot publicise his fund accounts.  Do you know of one?  It seems so discourteous not to IMO. 

 

[slartibartfast]

If you were unable to provide empirical proof of X to a court's satisfaction, does that mean that the court ruled that X has been proven to be false?

No, it has not been proven to be true.

[Alice Purjorick]

The fact that there is no evidence in the public domain of 

(a)  the amount in the fund 

(b)  no indication of how the solicited donations have been spent 

(c)  no way for any member of the public to get access to information on the aforementioned

  ... tends to support the assertion that the fund is secretive and without transparency.


A demonstration of the transparency of the Goncalo Amaral fund should be easily achieved if you are able to give any information to the contrary.

On presumes there is no legal requirement for him to have done so.
Presumably if donors are p****d off they will raise it with the appropriate authorities.
I suppose if you feel that strongly about it and have evidence that something of a less than honest nature took place you could raise it with appropriate authorities too.
I cannot see why you keep dripping on about it like leaky faucet.

[Mr Gray]

On presumes there is no legal requirement for him to have done so.
Presumably if donors are p****d off they will raise it with the appropriate authorities.
I suppose if you feel that strongly about it and have evidence that something of a less than honest nature took place you could raise it with appropriate authorities too.
I cannot see why you keep dripping on about it like leaky faucet.

I see your point and wish that others would stop whinging about the mccanns fund and if they have evidence take it up with the relevant authorities instead of using it as another stick to beat them with

[stephen25000]

I see your point and wish that others would stop whinging about the mccanns fund and if they have evidence take it up with the relevant authorities instead of using it as another stick to beat them with

The mccanns provided all the sticks themselves.

It's more than about time they took responsibility for their actions and STOPPED BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE FOR THEIR INCOMPETENCE.

[Jean-Pierre]

On presumes there is no legal requirement for him to have done so.
Presumably if donors are p****d off they will raise it with the appropriate authorities.
I suppose if you feel that strongly about it and have evidence that something of a less than honest nature took place you could raise it with appropriate authorities too.
I cannot see why you keep dripping on about it like leaky faucet.

One could make exactly the same comments about the Find Madeleine fund. 

[Brietta]

On presumes there is no legal requirement for him to have done so.
Presumably if donors are p****d off they will raise it with the appropriate authorities.
I suppose if you feel that strongly about it and have evidence that something of a less than honest nature took place you could raise it with appropriate authorities too.
I cannot see why you keep dripping on about it like leaky faucet.

This leaky faucet has no interest in the Find Madeleine Fund nor does it drip information on the Goncalo Amaral Fund perhaps because there is none to drip.

What is of interest is the lack of awareness shown by those who cannot equate constant criticism of one fund with the complete disinterest in the other as a display of contrasting principles.

Those who claim to have contributed happily to one fund and are comfortable with whatever happens to their voluntary donation; show great discontent that contributors to the other fund are similarly agreeable that once they have made their donation they are content that it will be used to fulfil the stated aims of the fund.

One law for them and another for everyone else.

The display of double standards is breath taking ... but the failure to realise it even more so.

[Brietta]

The mccanns provided all the sticks themselves.

It's more than about time they took responsibility for their actions and STOPPED BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE FOR THEIR INCOMPETENCE.

Cite please, Stephen.

[Jean-Pierre]

This leaky faucet has no interest in the Find Madeleine Fund nor does it drip information on the Goncalo Amaral Fund perhaps because there is none to drip.

What is of interest is the lack of awareness shown by those who cannot equate constant criticism of one fund with the complete disinterest in the other as a display of contrasting principles.

Those who claim to have contributed happily to one fund and are comfortable with whatever happens to their voluntary donation; show great discontent that contributors to the other fund are similarly agreeable that once they have made their donation they are content that it will be used to fulfil the stated aims of the fund.

One law for them and another for everyone else.

The display of double standards is breath taking ... but the failure to realise it even more so.

I am in perhaps the unique, and certainly unusual, position of having contributed to both funds.  Contributions were in the nature of no strings gifts, freely given, and whatever use the recipients choose to make of the money is fine by me. 

What is intriguing is difference in conduct of the recipients.

[Miss Taken Identity]

One has to wonder how sceptics have managed to criticise the McCann accounts so prolifically every year if there is no transparency.

Speaking as a contributor I have no complaints about the transparency of the accounts - and IMO the only reason sceptics are so disappointed that the accounts don't show how every penny has been spent is because they have been deprived of even more ammunition to use and abuse the McCanns with.

All I would say to anyone claiming that 'McCann bashing'  is not their only interest in having more detailed accounts is........ 'Pull the other one'.......       IMO the fact that not a single word of approval has ever been uttered by sceptics re the accounts is proof of that.

As far as know there is no reason why Amaral cannot publicise his fund accounts.  Do you know of one?  It seems so discourteous not to IMO. 

 

No need for you to wonder as there has been quite a lot written about the issues which people feel the need to discuss- This being a discussion board an all.
But just to remind you of one or two wee bits: The fund was NOT SOLD  to the public as a money pit for lawyers. Or to be used for first class travel to meet with lawyers who were being paid from the fund to sue someone. As an Aside- did Gerry or Kate ever take to 'looking' for their daughter on any of these visits? No Probably not, so this is conceived, by many, as a misuse of funds.

I and many other I chat with, have no complaints about the fund being used to pay some mortgage payments and buying treats and holidays for the 'family' even helping to buy a car.  It is the above mentioned issues which are unacceptable to many people, including myself. This is not mccann bashing, it is questioning their motivation for their behaviour. And why they used the fund money for lawyers and not to search for their daughter as the fund claims.




As far as you know, there is no reason for you to know anything about Amaral or his funds-which was set up to fight a couple of chancers who used public gifted funds to sue him!

Amarals fun was set up by friends and those who are concerned about the freedom of expression being denied to him as a European Citizen.  The McCanns have tried tirelessly to silence many people, all to no avail.  They should have spent their time and money on their twins!- who have been harmed by their parents actions!

So, keep Amaral bashing! he did nothing wrong in so far as Maddies disappearance is concerned! and he is nothing to you-not living in the same country he owes you NOTHING.

This thread was set up to goad and troll and bash Amaral... to deflect the real issues!