Madeleine Fund end of year accounts 2016-2017 delayed.

[faithlilly]

I get the impression from a previous post - that because the McCann accounts are not as detailed as they could be - you have not ruled out the possibility that this lack of information may indicate an intention  to 'hide' information.        And yet  - even with no accounts at all being provided to the public as a result of Amaral's decision not to publish them - you are able to state as a fact -  how the money collected for him was spent and apparently do not consider his own deliberate withholding of info may indicate an intent to hide information on his part imo.   

Inexplicable logic IMO.

p.s. Does your knowledge  of what happened to his fund money extend to knowing whether any donations to a children's charity were made?.

So both funds should be fully transparent. Are we agreed on that ?

[barrier]

p.s. Does your knowledge  of what happened to his fund money extend to knowing whether any donations to a children's charity were made?.

If it can be known how much a defense lawyer cost to launch an appeal then to successfully defend that appeal through the courts,it'll be known what change is left to give to any childrens charity.

[Benice]

So both funds should be fully transparent. Are we agreed on that ?

It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with  - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future.   If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC.    The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo  -  reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them.   It still does.

How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK  he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain?  The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to.   He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far.   To be so thoroughly  'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
   
All in my opinion.

[G-Unit]

It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with  - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future.   If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC.    The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo  -  reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them.   It still does.

How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK  he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain?  The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to.   He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far.   To be so thoroughly  'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
   
All in my opinion.

Have you noticed the fact that the Fund for Amaral's defence was not instigated, collected, spent or run by him?
How, therefore do you feel able to blame him for it's alleged shortcomings? Surely those in charge are responsible?

The Find Madeleine Fund was instigated by the McCanns. They promised, and the Fund delivered in it's first year-end accounts, transparency.

You suggest they decided to hide the details in future due to online criticism. I think it was media criticism which led the directors to make that decision. The McCanns themselves have always dismissed criticism online as 'just a few sad trolls'. They have, however, complained long and loud about their treatment by the media.

[faithlilly]

It's my own personal opinion that after seeing how the McCann accounts were treated purely as 'ammunition' for some sceptics to turn into sticks to beat them with  - it was decided not to 'oblige' them in future.   If that was the reason - then good for them AFAIAC.    The venomous outrage and indignation expressed by some sceptics at this withdrawal of previously available ammo  -  reminded me of toddlers reacting to having their dummy taken away from them.   It still does.

How can anyone have an opinion on the transparency of Amarals's fund accounts - when AFAIK  he has decided to keep that information out of the public domain?  The only reason I have read for his decision, is that he is not legally obliged to.   He apparently feels no moral obligation to his loyal supporters to let them know to what extent their money has helped him thus far.   To be so thoroughly  'dismissed' in that way is more than insensitive IMO - it's downright insulting.
   
All in my opinion.

Straight question Benice. Do you think both funds should be absolutely transparent?

[Benice]

Straight question Benice. Do you think both funds should be absolutely transparent?

No Faith - not if the accounts are being used and abused by people who see them only as a means of ammunition to persecute the McCanns.      The idea that the McCanns should spend their time crawling around in sackcloth and ashes - not only inviting people to kick them, but should actually be obliged to provide them with the means to do so  - is not one I subscribe to.

As for Amaral's accounts.    I'm struggling to think of a single acceptable/valid reason why he would not want his supporters to have sight of them.     Aren't you?

AIMHO

 

 

[Benice]

Have you noticed the fact that the Fund for Amaral's defence was not instigated, collected, spent or run by him?
How, therefore do you feel able to blame him for it's alleged shortcomings? Surely those in charge are responsible?

The Find Madeleine Fund was instigated by the McCanns. They promised, and the Fund delivered in it's first year-end accounts, transparency.

You suggest they decided to hide the details in future due to online criticism. I think it was media criticism which led the directors to make that decision. The McCanns themselves have always dismissed criticism online as 'just a few sad trolls'. They have, however, complained long and loud about their treatment by the media.

As far as I am concerned it was the public with their donations which instigated the Find Madeleine Fund.  Or do you think they should have just put the money into their own private bank accounts and said 'Thank you very much' and left it at that?

I find it difficult to believe that Amaral has no say in whether or not the accounts of his Fund are made public.  Or, if that is the case - why he feels no obligation to give the explanation for that decision to his supporters.

AIMHO

[faithlilly]

No Faith - not if the accounts are being used and abused by people who see them only as a means of ammunition to persecute the McCanns.      The idea that the McCanns should spend their time crawling around in sackcloth and ashes - not only inviting people to kick them, but should actually be obliged to provide them with the means to do so  - is not one I subscribe to.

As for Amaral's accounts.    I'm struggling to think of a single acceptable/valid reason why he would not want his supporters to have sight of them.     Aren't you?

AIMHO

 

I'm not arguing that point Benice. It is you who wants special treatment for two of the individuals in this discussion not me.

You claim to believe there is something 'shifty' about Amaral not posting transparent accounts yet refuse to hold the McCanns to such high standards. Don't the people who donate to the fund deserve to know just how their money is being spent ? Does the McCanns brittle feelings really trump the responsibility they have to those donators?

What do you think the McCanns have to fear from posting open and transparent accounts as they promised ? If there is nothing to question in their use of the fund why fear scrutiny ?

[G-Unit]

As far as I am concerned it was the public with their donations which instigated the Find Madeleine Fund.  Or do

you think they should have just put the money into their own private bank accounts and said 'Thank you very much' and left it at that?

I find it difficult to believe that Amaral has no say in whether or not the accounts of his Fund are made public.  Or, if that is the case - why he feels no obligation to give the explanation for that decision to his supporters.

AIMHO

Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?

How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.

[Robittybob1]

Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?

How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.

I think if a donation was made before they had the fund instituted it is fair enough to say "the public who instigated the Fund"  Well the need for the donations to be managed and encouraged.

[Lace]

Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?

How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.

I found this GUnit -   it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -

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.

I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.

By the way,  any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?

Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine,  that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?

[G-Unit]

I found this GUnit -   it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -

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.

I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.

By the way,  any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?

Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine,  that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?

Have you given up on justifying secrecy for one fund while demanding transparency for the other? Good, that was an unsupportable position imo.

They did like collecting boxes though, didn't they?. Wasn't the Ocean Club adorned with them after the Fund was set up?

[faithlilly]

I found this GUnit -   it would seem the McCann's but not by themselves decided something had to be done with all the money that had been collected -

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.

I doubt very much if the McCann's had had anything to do with the collection at the hospital.

By the way,  any idea what happened about the petition that was set up to investigate the Fund?

Is it just the McCann's fund for Madeleine,  that people are concerned about or all funds for missing children?

I can't think of one fund set up for a missing child that has as it's directors the child's parents nor one fund that has been used for litigation, can you ?

[Benice]

I'm not arguing that point Benice. It is you who wants special treatment for two of the individuals in this discussion not me.

You claim to believe there is something 'shifty' about Amaral not posting transparent accounts yet refuse to hold the McCanns to such high standards. Don't the people who donate to the fund deserve to know just how their money is being spent ? Does the McCanns brittle feelings really trump the responsibility they have to those donators?

What do you think the McCanns have to fear from posting open and transparent accounts as they promised ? If there is nothing to question in their use of the fund why fear scrutiny ?

I've already given my opinion on why the accounts are not as comprehensive as they could have been -  or would have been IMO - if they had not been used purely as ammunition to hound the McCanns.     

  I could be wrong of course, but if not then - good for them - why should they 'facilitate' those whose only aim is to find fault with everything they do -  when they don't have to.     It's nothing to do with 'fear' imo , but more to do (I hope) with sticking two fingers up to those who having spent their time salivating over the prospect of all that 'new stuff' in the accounts to turn into sticks -  then having to bear the disappointment of having their fun curtailed by the McCanns decision to restrict the amount of available ammunition..   

As someone who has donated to the Fund - you can rest assured that I don't mind what my money is spent on and never have.  If it helped to pay their mortgage then that pleases me.  It's risible that it is those people who have never donated and never would who keep telling those who have donated what to think and how up in arms we should all be.     Well don't bother on my account  - I have no complaints.

I would be amazed if any sceptic who donated to Amaral's fund is happy that no accounts have been made public  especially when it seems that it is not even deemed necessary for an acceptable reason or explanation to be given to his supporters for that massive decision.    An incredible display of ingratitude IMO.

All the above is purely in my opinion - no-one is obliged to agree with it.

[Benice]

Who said it was the public who instigated the Fund? Was it the McCanns by any chance?

How can you support the decision of the Madeleine Fund directors to avoid transparency but denigrate the organisers of Amaral's Fund for doing the same? Your argument about criticism doesn't hold water unless you think that no criticism would be aimed at the Amaral Fund.

Please provide evidence that the McCanns asked for donations from the public for the purpose of starting a fund  before any donations from the public had been received.     If there is no such evidence - then it's obvious IMO that it was the donations being received and offered by the public which resulted in the McCanns starting a fund in order to deal with that money.   IMO they had no idea until they were told that people were making donations and others were enquiring how to do that.

With regard to Amaral's fund.      I have merely expressed the difficulty I have in understanding why the decision not to publicise his accounts was taken.   Claiming that it was because they were not obliged to by law is hardly an adequate explanation IMO.

AIMHO