Where has the £266,000 gone?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Alfie]

I'm afraid the paucity of your knowledge affects the authority of your posts.

  Behave.  Nice big words though, well done.

[slartibartfast]

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?

[faithlilly]

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 !

[Alfie]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[Alfie]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[Alfie]

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 

[Alfie]

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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Alfie]

That is what you implied.

what is what I implied?

[Brietta]

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.