Where has the £266,000 gone?

[stephen25000]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[faithlilly]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Brietta]

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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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 ?

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Angelo222]

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?

[Angelo222]

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.

[Alfie]

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.