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: G-Unit on July 24, 2015, 05:42:15 PM
-
The information supplied by the above company has been criticised because of it's lack of detail and clarity. There is no legal obligation for the company to provide more information than it does. Is there a moral obligation for it to do so?
43
-
of cousrse especially after likening it to a charity with transparency rules they have to abide by
-
of cousrse especially after likening it to a charity with transparency rules they have to abide by
Agreed.
-
Promises, promises.
Now what were they be in the beginning ?
-
The information supplied by the above company has been criticised because of it's lack of detail and clarity. There is no legal obligation for the company to provide more information than it does. Is there a moral obligation for it to do so?
I am not so concerned about the morality issue.
I find it strange that it should be proclaimed as a organisation whose financial dealings will be/are transparent, when they patently are not. Several posters on here insist they are but that view point is at variance with the information available from Companies House, the whole bloody lot being available from C H for all to see.
Work that out for yourselves 8(0(* or to write it on a sign and bash you over the head with it: "who would you rather believe, Companies House or a self proclaimed expert on here"?
-
I am not so concerned about the morality issue.
I find it strange that it should be proclaimed as a organisation whose financial dealings will be/are transparent, when they patently are not. Several posters on here insist they are but that view point is at variance with the information available from Companies House, the whole bloody lot being available from C H for all to see.
Work that out for yourselves 8(0(* or to write it on a sign and bash you over the head with it: "who would you rather believe, Companies House or a self proclaimed expert on here"?
The 'morality' question arises when you compare the information available and the 'transparency' offered. I suppose it all depends on your definition of transparency? None of the below synonyms describe the published accounts in my opinion;
synonyms: obvious, explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, clear, lucid, straightforward, plain, (as) plain as the nose on your face, apparent, unmistakable, manifest, conspicuous, patent, indisputable, self-evident;
-
The 'morality' question arises when you compare the information available and the 'transparency' offered. I suppose it all depends on your definition of transparency? None of the below synonyms describe the published accounts in my opinion;
synonyms: obvious, explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, clear, lucid, straightforward, plain, (as) plain as the nose on your face, apparent, unmistakable, manifest, conspicuous, patent, indisputable, self-evident;
What is immoral about the alleged lack of transparency as you see it?
-
What is immoral about the alleged lack of transparency as you see it?
It's not alleged Alfred, it's patently obvious. This is what the findmadeleine website says;
An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
As the company has no employees, who, in the first instance is the experienced fund administrator who was appointed? No-one has ever been able to find out.
What are high standards of transparency and accountability?
Does that mean being transparent and accountable for how people's donated money was spent? If not, what else there was to be transparent about? If you look at the accounts it's impossible to discover how much was spent on what, except in very broad terms.
Few moral judgments are more intuitively obvious and more widely shared than that promises ought to be kept.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/
-
The 'morality' question arises when you compare the information available and the 'transparency' offered. I suppose it all depends on your definition of transparency? None of the below synonyms describe the published accounts in my opinion;
synonyms: obvious, explicit, unambiguous, unequivocal, clear, lucid, straightforward, plain, (as) plain as the nose on your face, apparent, unmistakable, manifest, conspicuous, patent, indisputable, self-evident;
The way I see it is "what is the reason for not putting your money where your mouth is". i.e if one says one is going to do something why not do it?. To not do so leads to the thought that the original suggestion was merely a hollow "beau geste".
To then hide behind the old "RTFSPS" lark is a bit naff.
-
The information supplied by the above company has been criticised because of it's lack of detail and clarity. There is no legal obligation for the company to provide more information than it does. Is there a moral obligation for it to do so?
This is nothing unique to the McCanns. Time and time again we see events occur and the public is asked to help out even donating cash to the cause. Promises are made in the opening days in an attempt to garner favour but with the passage of time those promises are conveniently forgotten. The McCanns promised absolute transparency with their missing daughters Fund but it was soon cloaked under the canopy of a Limited Company which under normal reporting rules in the UK has to reveal very little detail. I for one want to know who was paid out of that Fund for what reason and when.
-
This is nothing unique to the McCanns. Time and time again we see events occur and the public is asked to help out even donating cash to the cause. Promises are made in the opening days in an attempt to garner favour but with the passage of time those promises are conveniently forgotten. The McCanns promised absolute transparency with their missing daughters Fund but it was soon cloaked under the canopy of a Limited Company which under normal reporting rules in the UK has to reveal very little detail. I for one want to know who was paid out of that Fund for what reason and when.
If it bothers you that much, why dont you write to them, insider?
I have given to many charities, but never demanded to know how every penny is spent.
The ball is in your court if it worries YOU that much.
-
If it bothers you that much, why dont you write to them, insider?
I have given to many charities, but never demanded to know how every penny is spent.
The ball is in your court if it worries YOU that much.
I gave up emailing them because they don't reply.
-
This is nothing unique to the McCanns. Time and time again we see events occur and the public is asked to help out even donating cash to the cause. Promises are made in the opening days in an attempt to garner favour but with the passage of time those promises are conveniently forgotten. The McCanns promised absolute transparency with their missing daughters Fund but it was soon cloaked under the canopy of a Limited Company which under normal reporting rules in the UK has to reveal very little detail. I for one want to know who was paid out of that Fund for what reason and when.
The problem is that even if the fund had been registered as a charity not much more detail would have to have been revealed. I examined the accounts of 'Missing People' and was not able to get a clear picture of their activities. The only way we would get a true picture is if we saw the basic accounts before things were grouped under broad headings for reporting purposes.
-
It's not alleged Alfred, it's patently obvious. This is what the findmadeleine website says;
An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
As the company has no employees, who, in the first instance is the experienced fund administrator who was appointed? No-one has ever been able to find out.
What are high standards of transparency and accountability?
Does that mean being transparent and accountable for how people's donated money was spent? If not, what else there was to be transparent about? If you look at the accounts it's impossible to discover how much was spent on what, except in very broad terms.
Few moral judgments are more intuitively obvious and more widely shared than that promises ought to be kept.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/
does the fund have share holders? What ever gave you the impression that the directors of the Fund meant it had to be transparent and accountable to YOU?
-
I gave up emailing them because they don't reply.
You're not alone, many have asked and been ignored. The only reply forthcoming is that the accounts are available of the Companies House website, which is true, but they don't tell you anything. If you ask who the Fund Manager was/is they don't answer.
-
You're not alone, many have asked and been ignored. The only reply forthcoming is that the accounts are available of the Companies House website, which is true, but they don't tell you anything. If you ask who the Fund Manager was/is they don't answer.
Why do you and many others need to know who the Fund Manager is?
-
You're not alone, many have asked and been ignored. The only reply forthcoming is that the accounts are available of the Companies House website, which is true, but they don't tell you anything. If you ask who the Fund Manager was/is they don't answer.
Secrets breed suspicion and there is plenty of that in this case.
-
does the fund have share holders? What ever gave you the impression that the directors of the Fund meant it had to be transparent and accountable to YOU?
The clue lies in "Private Company Limited By Guarantee" ?{)(**
-
does the fund have share holders? What ever gave you the impression that the directors of the Fund meant it had to be transparent and accountable to YOU?
I would assume the directors meant it to be transparent and accountable to everyone, especially but not exclusively, those who donated.
-
The Directors of the Company are obliged to adhere to the Good Governance Code
"Being open and accountable both internally and externally"
"open communications, informing people about the organisation and its work"
"listening and responding to the views of .. others with an interest in the organisation’s work"
-
Why do you and many others need to know who the Fund Manager is?
Someone might want to write for clarification on whether "object" number 3 is still current?
-
I would assume the directors meant it to be transparent and accountable to everyone, especially but not exclusively, those who donated.
As virtually ALL, and indeed maybe the whole lot of the existing fund, came from the Mccanns purse, I cant see what business it is of anyone tbh.
But then there are people who are desperate to deride everything that The Mccanns do.
Various Court settlements and the proceeds of Kates book must surely cover what is in the Fund
-
virtually ALL, and indeed maybe the whole lot of the existing fund, came from the Mccanns purse, I cant see what business it is of anyone tbh.
But then there are people who are desperate to deride everything that The Mccanns do.
Various Court settlements and the proceeds of Kates book must surely cover what is in the Fund
But the Madeleine Fund website today accepts donations from the public.
-
But the Madeleine Fund website today accepts donations from the public.
Considerable time has passed by. people fall by the wayside
I doubt much money comes from the public now. It is all, or virtually all, money put in by Kate and Gerry./
TBH. it is surly to even question it, in the circumstances.
-
Considerable time has passed by. people fall by the wayside
I doubt much money comes from the public now. It is all, or virtually all, money put in by Kate and Gerry./
TBH. it is surly to even question it, in the circumstances.
If yesterday one member of the public donated 5 pounds, the directors have a responsibility to that person, don't they?
-
If yesterday one member of the public donated 5 pounds, the directors have a responsibility to that person, don't they?
If the general public don't know what they are donating to by now then Social Media has failed abysmally.
-
If the general public don't know what they are donating to by now then Social Media has failed abysmally.
The general public rely on the MF website to describe what the 2 purposes of the fund are.
-
As virtually ALL, and indeed maybe the whole lot of the existing fund, came from the Mccanns purse, I cant see what business it is of anyone tbh.
But then there are people who are desperate to deride everything that The Mccanns do.
Various Court settlements and the proceeds of Kates book must surely cover what is in the Fund
Quite right too. Kate Mccann said to GMTV its her job now , ie "income generation"
So she did it well. Wouldnt you agree to the Sun posting an article entitled "couldnt make love to my husband" if it brought monies in to look for your missing child (alledgedly anyway seeing as no PI has come up with anything of interest to date)
-
If the general public don't know what they are donating to by now then Social Media has failed abysmally.
Exactly.
The fund is almost all made up of money donated by The Mccanns. Probably over 99% of it
To be so probing about minuscule amounts is downright surly IMO
And it is only done in order to denigrate The Mccanns. No other reason
In my book, it is "Well done Kate and Gerry" for raising such colossal amounts
-
Yes, well done K and G
8@??)(
-
There is nothing in the company's articles about initiating libel cases.
-
Everything and anything is included Pegasus in the statement about using the monies to bring Madelenes abductor to justice, also the clause about fnancial help to the family,clever lawyers, cover everything with words
see here
http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
-
Everything and anything is included Pegasus in the statement about using the monies to bring Madelenes abductor to justice, also the clause about fnancial help to the family,clever lawyers, cover everything with words
Object 2 (bringing the perp to justice) cannot include initiating libel cases.
And Object 3 (financial help to the family) was certainly removed years ago.
It is an ex-object.
-
Object 2 (bringing the perp to justice) cannot include initiating libel cases.
And Object 3 (financial help to the family) was certainly removed years ago.
It is an ex-object.
but they can and do argue that Amarals book prevented findng Madelene so monies used in court actions covered (lawyers ways)
also re family financial help
see my edited post with link, its not an ex object, still there
ok reposting link, read under fund objectives
http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
-
The general public rely on the MF website to describe what the 2 purposes of the fund are.
So exactly what does The MF Website say?
-
but they can and do argue that Amarals book prevented findng Madelene so monies used in court actions covered (lawyers ways)
also re family financial help
see my edited post with link, its not an ex object, still there
ok reposting link
http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
Object 3 (financial help to the family) was deleted from the company's documentation at Companies House years ago.
It most definitely is an ex-object.
-
Object 3 (financial help to the family) was deleted from the company's documentation at Companies House years ago.
It most definitely is an ex-object.
well its still there on the FM webste so, well dunno now, challenge it and smoke the truth out suppose, bye for now
-
well its still there on the FM webste so, well dunno now, challenge it and smoke the truth out suppose, bye for now
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2014.htm
Scroll down to page 3 "The full objects of the Fund are: ...."
As you can see with your own eyes, object 3 is not there.
As I said, object 3 is no more, it is an ex-object
Object 3 ("to provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family") was removed by the "Special Resolution: Amendment to Memorandum and Articles" signed by the directors and filed at Company House on 21st Dec 2011.
Ask any of the lawyers on this forum - they will confirm this is true
-
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_2014.htm
Scroll down to page 3 "The full objects of the Fund are: ...."
As you can see with your own eyes, object 3 is not there.
As I said, object 3 is no more, it is an ex-object
Object 3 ("to provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family") was removed by the "Special Resolution: Amendment to Memorandum and Articles" signed by the directors and filed at Company House on 21st Dec 2011.
Ask any of the lawyers on this forum - they will confirm this is true
I'm not a lawyer but I know this is true, they just haven't updated the website with the correct information for some reason. I'd be interested to know why that object was removed. I assume they decided they don't need support any more.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I know this is true, they just haven't updated the website with the correct information for some reason. I'd be interested to know why that object was removed. I assume they decided they don't need support any more.
The trick is to look at "Powers" in the Articles of Association.
-
Did Madeleine McCann's parents have a legal obligation to set up a fund for the money donated by people anxious to help?
Did they have a moral obligation to to set up a fund at all? I think when you think about it ... you will realise the answer to both questions is "no".
If Madeleine's parents had directed donations be paid into a bank account of their choice ... would that have been morally wrong or illegal?
If a group of friends had set up a bank account requesting donations to a fund for Madeleine would that have been morally wrong or illegal?
Not according to the sceptics who have been doing just that and paying into the bank account set up for Mr Amaral.
-
G Amarals' fund is for one purpose only, paying for legal fees for his court appeal against the Mccanns suing him
To attempt to say this is the same as the No Stone Unturned fund where any monies recieved can be used for any purpose is ridiculous at best
-
G Amarals' fund is for one purpose only, paying for legal fees for his court appeal against the Mccanns suing him
To attempt to say this is the same as the No Stone Unturned fund where any monies recieved can be used for any purpose is ridiculous at best
It is indeed ridiculous to make a comparison between both funds since there is absolutely no comparison ... and I am delighted you managed to assimilate that part of my post at least.
The pertinent aspect is that donations to Mr Amaral are paid into a private account ... which is not subject to audit or published accounts.
Quote ...Therefore, his friends decided to open a private bank account, where funds would be kept to pay, whenever necessary and whenever possible, expenses that were presented by Mr Amaral’s lawyer. Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral was born out of solidarity and friendship.
The trial is ongoing, since 2009, nothing has changed, pending final judgment. We continue to accept your donations only into this one bank account and we continue to meet only legal expenses out of that very same account. Unquote
I don't think "expenses that were presented by Mr Amaral’s lawyer" http://www.gofundme.com/legal-defencepjga translates exactly into "one purpose only, paying for legal fees for his court appeal against the Mccanns suing him".
A matter of opinion ... but I think that may cover a relatively wide brief ... but since we will never see accounts, we simply won't know.
-
The Find Madeleine fund was set up to assist in the search for Madeleine but little if any searching has been done since Halligen and Metodo were booted into touch after squandering £ millions. Instead, Kate McCann has devoted her time and energy in suing all those worth suing who dispute her version of events using the Fund in order to do so. The Madeleine Fund was never intended to be used in such a way but has morphed into a weapon instead of a search vehicle.
-
Exactly.
The fund is almost all made up of money donated by The Mccanns. Probably over 99% of it
To be so probing about minuscule amounts is downright surly IMO
And it is only done in order to denigrate The Mccanns. No other reason
In my book, it is "Well done Kate and Gerry" for raising such colossal amounts
From whom exactly ?
Money which should never have been needed in the first place if they had exercised both common sense and simple application of intelligence.
-
From whom exactly ?
Money which should never have been needed in the first place if they had exercised both common sense and simple application of intelligence.
The money has been brought in as a consequence of libel settlements yet it is not known what happened to Madeleine and to what extent if any her parents were involved. Those libel settlements are not set in stone and could be overturned given future developments. Little wonder therefore that the Madeleine Fund liability is limited by guarantee.
-
The money has been brought in as a consequence of libel settlements yet it is not known what happened to Madeleine and to what extent if any her parents were involved. Those libel settlements are not set in stone and could be overturned given future developments. Little wonder therefore that the Madeleine Fund liability is limited by guarantee.
The money in the fund belongs to Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd. A company is a legal 'person' separate from it's directors and shareholders. It would depend whether the McCanns sued people or the fund did. If the McCanns sued in their own name and then donated the proceeds to the fund, as their friends did, then the fund now owns that money. It is under no obligation to pay it's director's debts.
-
It is indeed ridiculous to make a comparison between both funds since there is absolutely no comparison ... and I am delighted you managed to assimilate that part of my post at least.
The pertinent aspect is that donations to Mr Amaral are paid into a private account ... which is not subject to audit or published accounts.
Quote ...Therefore, his friends decided to open a private bank account, where funds would be kept to pay, whenever necessary and whenever possible, expenses that were presented by Mr Amaral’s lawyer. Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral was born out of solidarity and friendship.
The trial is ongoing, since 2009, nothing has changed, pending final judgment. We continue to accept your donations only into this one bank account and we continue to meet only legal expenses out of that very same account. Unquote
I don't think "expenses that were presented by Mr Amaral’s lawyer" http://www.gofundme.com/legal-defencepjga translates exactly into "one purpose only, paying for legal fees for his court appeal against the Mccanns suing him".
A matter of opinion ... but I think that may cover a relatively wide brief ... but since we will never see accounts, we simply won't know.
Same with Madeleines Fund, no one sees the details....the question you are avoiding is why? Seeing as its been trussed as transparent as a charity, like hell it is...and we are talking several millions not 30k that supporters have sent to Mr Amaral, bit of a difference there, just a tad? What IS and will remain ridiculous is you comparing them, audits and published or not. Cos lets face it the Mccanns Funds expenditure in the millions without explanation is grotesque, nothing Mr Amarals fund could even hope to touch
-
The NSPCC promises to be "honest & open" and "accountable" in its blurb here http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/fundraising/our-commitment-to-the-fundraising-promise.pdf
Here is an example of its published accounts, from 2011 / 2012 http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/annual-reports/nspcc-annual-report-2012.pdf
Perhaps a McCann critic can tell me if the NSPCC fulfils the criteria of transparency as far as their published accounts are concerned?
-
The money in the fund belongs to Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd. A company is a legal 'person' separate from it's directors and shareholders. It would depend whether the McCanns sued people or the fund did. If the McCanns sued in their own name and then donated the proceeds to the fund, as their friends did, then the fund now owns that money. It is under no obligation to pay it's director's debts.
Correct; but if the company goes into liquidation the liability of the members is a quid each.
-
Same with Madeleines Fund, no one sees the details....the question you are avoiding is why? Seeing as its been trussed as transparent as a charity, like hell it is...and we are talking several millions not 30k that supporters have sent to Mr Amaral, bit of a difference there, just a tad? What IS and will remain ridiculous is you comparing them, audits and published or not. Cos lets face it the Mccanns Funds expenditure in the millions without explanation is grotesque, nothing Mr Amarals fund could even hope to touch
We will never know exactly what went into Mr Amaral's friends' private bank account ... we will never know what went out ... nor will we ever know exactly where it went.
If sceptics cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of their constant carping about the Madeleine Fund which is subject to Company Law while condoning the Amaral Fund housed in a private bank account ... there isn't really a lot to be said about the exhibition of double standards.
-
We will never know exactly what went into Mr Amaral's friends' private bank account ... we will never know what went out ... nor will we ever know exactly where it went.
If sceptics cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of their constant carping about the Madeleine Fund which is subject to Company Law while condoning the Amaral Fund housed in a private bank account ... there isn't really a lot to be said about the exhibition of double standards.
Both are bleedin' begging bowls end of debate. Chuck in your money and goodbye.
-
We will never know exactly what went into Mr Amaral's friends' private bank account ... we will never know what went out ... nor will we ever know exactly where it went.
If sceptics cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of their constant carping about the Madeleine Fund which is subject to Company Law while condoning the Amaral Fund housed in a private bank account ... there isn't really a lot to be said about the exhibition of double standards.
Oh get off your high horse for a second.
30k even IF not spent on what it is for is hardly the same as 5 million.
ps are you saying Amarals friends (whoever they are) are pocketing monies destined for lawyers for his defence?
-
Oh get off your high horse for a second.
30k even IF not spent on what it is for is hardly the same as 5 million.
ps are you saying Amarals friends (whoever they are) are pocketing monies destined for lawyers for his defence?
Think about what you have posted ... "Amarals friends (whoever they are)" ... then give some thought to your criticism of the transparency of Madeleine's Fund.
-
Oh get off your high horse for a second.
30k even IF not spent on what it is for is hardly the same as 5 million.
ps are you saying Amarals friends (whoever they are) are pocketing monies destined for lawyers for his defence?
Next they'll be accusing PJGA of making mortgage payments.
-
Think about what you have posted ... "Amarals friends (whoever they are)" ... then give some thought to your criticism of the transparency of Madeleine's Fund.
I prefer straight talking if thats OK
-
Was the payment if any for appearing on Oprah Show paid into the MFNSLUL fund?
-
The NSPCC promises to be "honest & open" and "accountable" in its blurb here http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/fundraising/our-commitment-to-the-fundraising-promise.pdf
Here is an example of its published accounts, from 2011 / 2012 http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/annual-reports/nspcc-annual-report-2012.pdf
Perhaps a McCann critic can tell me if the NSPCC fulfils the criteria of transparency as far as their published accounts are concerned?
I have had a very quick look and I'm impressed, actually. Their blurb is very clear. It tells you how to complain or ask a question, the deadline for a reply, who to approach if you're not happy with the answer and the deadline for their reply.
Their accounts contain a lot more detail than the Madeleine Fund accounts. They show what funds came from where and what costs are associated with what activities. They are much clearer (at a quick glance) than the accounts of Missing People, for example.
-
Next they'll be accusing PJGA of making mortgage payments.
well it was only 2,forgiveable probably, paying off ALL their mortgage wouldnt be
but yes, what a song and dance and carpet chewing about a measly 30k collected for a single purpose, of paying for defence, as if 350k due to the mccanns is notenough for some, hope they never get it too
Unbelievable isnt it making millions out of a disappearance of a child, how strange and unprecedented
-
Was the payment if any for appearing on Oprah Show paid into the MFNSLUL fund?
Well; put it this way, you won't find out by looking at the accounts and if you ask they won't tell you. I can remember a lot of criticism of Live aid in the 80's and I wrote off and got their accounts. Impressive! Every single penny raised was used for the stated aims.
-
Was the payment if any for appearing on Oprah Show paid into the MFNSLUL fund?
Oprah Winfrey stated she has never paid guests and i tend to beleve her, honest kind of woman
-
Oprah doesn't pay guests.
-
Well; put it this way, you won't find out by looking at the accounts and if you ask they won't tell you. I can remember a lot of criticism of Live aid in the 80's and I wrote off and got their accounts. Impressive! Every single penny raised was used for the stated aims.
No, quite, the accounts are as secretive as Smithman efits were until Scotland Yard had to get a court order to access the PIs files!! Unbelievable!
-
We will never know exactly what went into Mr Amaral's friends' private bank account ... we will never know what went out ... nor will we ever know exactly where it went.
If sceptics cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of their constant carping about the Madeleine Fund which is subject to Company Law while condoning the Amaral Fund housed in a private bank account ... there isn't really a lot to be said about the exhibition of double standards.
I admire your ability to bring Amaral into every thread whatever the subject, although it gets a bit boring at times. Perhaps we should have a thread asking if Amaral's friends have a moral obligation to be transparent?
Meanwhile, we are discussing the moral obligation or otherwise of the Madeleine Fund. Company Law has nothing to say about transparency, so it's not relevant. Complying with company Law doesn't mean the Fund is displaying transparency as promised. The Fund needs to exceed those requirements if it wishes to demonstrate transparency.
-
I admire your ability to bring Amaral into every thread whatever the subject, although it gets a bit boring at times. Perhaps we should have a thread asking if Amaral's friends have a moral obligation to be transparent?
Meanwhile, we are discussing the moral obligation or otherwise of the Madeleine Fund. Company Law has nothing to say about transparency, so it's not relevant. Complying with company Law doesn't mean the Fund is displaying transparency as promised. The Fund needs to exceed those requirements if it wishes to demonstrate transparency.
The MFNSLUL fund states that it will follow the Good Governance Code, and that does require transparency.
-
The MFNSLUL fund states that it will follow the Good Governance Code, and that does require transparency.
sorry to be a bore but what does MFNSLUL stand for
-
Oprah doesn't pay guests.
Was thsi story ever denied?
£1million deal to tell all to Oprah Winfrey
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510483/Kate-Gerry-McCann-1million-deal-tell-Oprah-Winfrey.html#ixzz3gwby2A18
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
I think we can take that with a bucket of salt.
When was the film made? Did I miss that?
-
I have had a very quick look and I'm impressed, actually. Their blurb is very clear. It tells you how to complain or ask a question, the deadline for a reply, who to approach if you're not happy with the answer and the deadline for their reply.
Their accounts contain a lot more detail than the Madeleine Fund accounts. They show what funds came from where and what costs are associated with what activities. They are much clearer (at a quick glance) than the accounts of Missing People, for example.
Yes, a very slick and expensive presentation. I wonder how much it cost to put together, how much it costs to man the head office and personnel who answer your calls, and yet for all that no idea have much they spent on purchasing wristbands or how much their website costs to run per year, just two of the burning questions I believe have been raised vis-a-vis the Madeleine Fund. Transparency?
-
I think we can take that with a bucket of salt.
When was the film made? Did I miss that?
wondering why anyone brought it up in the first place
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id62.html
-
Yes, a very slick and expensive presentation. I wonder how much it cost to put together, how much it costs to man the head office and personnel who answer your calls, and yet for all that no idea have much they spent on purchasing wristbands or how much their website costs to run per year, just two of the burning questions I believe have been raised vis-a-vis the Madeleine Fund. Transparency?
how much CAN it cost to purchase plastic wristbands and those costs were detailed Outwith the costs for the website, which is still, a ridiculous amount! 36k my arris
-
I admire your ability to bring Amaral into every thread whatever the subject, although it gets a bit boring at times. Perhaps we should have a thread asking if Amaral's friends have a moral obligation to be transparent?
Meanwhile, we are discussing the moral obligation or otherwise of the Madeleine Fund. Company Law has nothing to say about transparency, so it's not relevant. Complying with company Law doesn't mean the Fund is displaying transparency as promised. The Fund needs to exceed those requirements if it wishes to demonstrate transparency.
Kindly define what level of transparency you believe was promised to you by the MF and perhaps give us an example of a company or charity that both promises and delivers that level of transparency, it would be useful to compare for the purposes of this discussion.
-
I think we can take that with a bucket of salt.
When was the film made? Did I miss that?
I.m surprised it was never denied categorically, aren't you? The McCanns do so like newspaper reports to be corrected if inaccurate.
They (wisely, surprisingly imo) decided not to continue with the film I believe.
-
wondering why anyone brought it up in the first place
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id62.html
Wasn't that around the same time as the Winfrey/Walters interview negotiations?
http://news.sky.com/story/568632/madeleine-mccann-oprah-bidding-war-is-played-down
-
Wasn't that around the same time as the Winfrey/Walters interview negotiations?
http://news.sky.com/story/568632/madeleine-mccann-oprah-bidding-war-is-played-down
How could there be a "bidding war" when Oprah does not pay interviewees?
**snip
A spokeswoman for Harpo Productions, which produces the Oprah Winfrey show in the US, said: "While we've been in contact with the McCann family representatives, we are in no way involved in a bidding war.
"The Oprah Winfrey Show does not pay for news interviews."
http://news.sky.com/story/568632/madeleine-mccann-oprah-bidding-war-is-played-down
-
Yes, a very slick and expensive presentation. I wonder how much it cost to put together, how much it costs to man the head office and personnel who answer your calls, and yet for all that no idea have much they spent on purchasing wristbands or how much their website costs to run per year, just two of the burning questions I believe have been raised vis-a-vis the Madeleine Fund. Transparency?
If I donated to the NSPCC and asked a question they would reply. The Fund has been asked questions and has not replied. The NSPCC presentation names senior staff and their areas of responsibility. The Fund appointed an experienced fund manager but has always refused to release their name. That person must have worked for nothing as the Fund says it had no employees. The NSPCC displays much more transparency than Madeleine's Fund.
-
If I donated to the NSPCC and asked a question they would reply. The Fund has been asked questions and has not replied. The NSPCC presentation names senior staff and their areas of responsibility. The Fund appointed an experienced fund manager but has always refused to release their name. That person must have worked for nothing as the Fund says it had no employees. The NSPCC displays much more transparency than Madeleine's Fund.
One of the reasons that the Fund may not have responded was the ginormous orchestrated barrage of abuse that everything to do with The Mccanns raised.
Better to ignore than to get drawn in. Have you thought of that?
-
The Find Madeleine fund was set up to assist in the search for Madeleine but little if any searching has been done since Halligen and Metodo were booted into touch after squandering £ millions. Instead, Kate McCann has devoted her time and energy in suing all those worth suing who dispute her version of events using the Fund in order to do so. The Madeleine Fund was never intended to be used in such a way but has morphed into a weapon instead of a search vehicle.
I disagree Angelo, we don't know if people are ringing the person/s involved in taking queries with regard to Madeleine, eg sightings, so we don't know if the search is ongoing with the fund money.
As to the McCann's suing, well the fund is there to help them financially too, they have sued when lies have been printed in papers and when Amaral wrote his book claiming Madeleine is dead.
I don't have any objection for the fund to be used in the way the McCann's have used it, every thing they have done has been to stop any lies or misinformation getting out which would jeopordise the search for Madeliene.
-
One of the reasons that the Fund may not have responded was the ginormous orchestrated barrage of abuse that everything to do with The Mccanns raised.
Better to ignore than to get drawn in. Have you thought of that?
I prefer not to speculate as to why the McCanns have behaved in a certain manner. I know that transparency was offered but not delivered. The reasons have not been given.
-
I disagree Angelo, we don't know if people are ringing the person/s involved in taking queries with regard to Madeleine, eg sightings, so we don't know if the search is ongoing with the fund money.
As to the McCann's suing, well the fund is there to help them financially too, they have sued when lies have been printed in papers and when Amaral wrote his book claiming Madeleine is dead.
I don't have any objection for the fund to be used in the way the McCann's have used it, every thing they have done has been to stop any lies or misinformation getting out which would jeopordise the search for Madeliene.
Just one point; the fund is no longer used to help the Mccanns financially. That clause was removed in 2011, as pathfinder has pointed out.
-
If I donated to the NSPCC and asked a question they would reply. The Fund has been asked questions and has not replied. The NSPCC presentation names senior staff and their areas of responsibility. The Fund appointed an experienced fund manager but has always refused to release their name. That person must have worked for nothing as the Fund says it had no employees. The NSPCC displays much more transparency than Madeleine's Fund.
Phone up the NSPCC and ask them how much they spent on wristbands in 2011/12 and how much their glossy accounts brochure cost to put together, and whilst you're at it ask them what salaries they pay to those who man the phones.
-
One of the reasons that the Fund may not have responded was the ginormous orchestrated barrage of abuse that everything to do with The Mccanns raised.
Better to ignore than to get drawn in. Have you thought of that?
Very true.
-
I prefer not to speculate as to why the McCanns have behaved in a certain manner. I know that transparency was offered but not delivered. The reasons have not been given.
Transparency is in place to the satisfaction of all the authorities.
But seems not to the satisfaction of a few 'boot putter-in' types on the internet.
I wonder why they need to know how much was spent on paper clips, teabags and toilet paper?
Trivial minds, or bitter vindictive minds? Dunno
-
Phone up the NSPCC and ask them how much they spent on wristbands in 2011/12 and how much their glossy accounts brochure cost to put together, and whilst you're at it ask them what salaries they pay to those who man the phones.
Pardon? I have no interest in the NSPCC. I didn't bring them into the discussion, you did so in an attempt to show their lack of transparency. The attempt failed. If you wish them to answer questions ask them yourself. I looked at the link you provided and concluded that they are much more transparent than Madeleine's Fund, which is what we're discussing. Perhaps you should tell us why you provided the link as it didn't add anything to the debate.
-
I prefer not to speculate as to why the McCanns have behaved in a certain manner. I know that transparency was offered but not delivered. The reasons have not been given.
Once again can you please specify what level of transparency you believe you were promised by the MF - for example, did you want and expect a breakdown if costs for everthing spent by the fund? If so this would be quite an extraordinary level of transparency which as far as I'm aware no businesses or charities offer in their yearly accounts, even those that similarly promise transparency and accountability such as the NSPCC.
-
Pardon? I have no interest in the NSPCC. I didn't bring them into the discussion, you did so in an attempt to show their lack of transparency. The attempt failed. If you wish them to answer questions ask them yourself. I looked at the link you provided and concluded that they are much more transparent than Madeleine's Fund, which is what we're discussing. Perhaps you should tell us why you provided the link as it didn't add anything to the debate.
You claimed that you could phone up the NSPCC and they would answer any question you put to them about their accounts, it's up to you to prove this is indeed the case. Over to you.
-
Transparency is in place to the satisfaction of all the authorities.
But seems not to the satisfaction of a few 'boot putter-in' types on the internet.
I wonder why they need to know how much was spent on paper clips, teabags and toilet paper?
Trivial minds, or bitter vindictive minds? Dunno
Transparency is not required by any authorities that I know of, so the transparency offered was not meant to satisfy them, so who were the McCanns offering it to? How petty to speak of office sundries. As they have no offices that I know of it's immaterial also. I think you will find it's those with enquiring minds who are interested, not those who question nothing and believe everything.
-
Transparency is not required by any authorities that I know of, so the transparency offered was not meant to satisfy them, so who were the McCanns offering it to? How petty to speak of office sundries. As they have no offices that I know of it's immaterial also. I think you will find it's those with enquiring minds who are interested, not those who question nothing and believe everything.
Transparency is not required by any authorities that you know of??! You are joking I presume. What do you actually understand by the term "transparency" in this context and in what ways are the MF failing to deliver?
-
You claimed that you could phone up the NSPCC and they would answer any question you put to them about their accounts, it's up to you to prove this is indeed the case. Over to you.
I didn't claim that I could telephone them, you invented that bit. The link you provided had details of how to complain/ask questions. There is a clear process laid down. The process includes what the next step is if you still aren't satisfied. The Madeleine Fund has no such instructions, no such process, and no record of even replying to questions let alone answering them. I have nothing to prove, it's the Fund which lacks proof of it's declaration being fulfilled.
-
I didn't claim that I could telephone them, you invented that bit. The link you provided had details of how to complain/ask questions. There is a clear process laid down. The process includes what the next step is if you still aren't satisfied. The Madeleine Fund has no such instructions, no such process, and no record of even replying to questions let alone answering them. I have nothing to prove, it's the Fund which lacks proof of it's declaration being fulfilled.
so you feel that the fund should have an extra layer of admin to deal with complaints...I'm sure they would need a massive team to deal numerous vexatious requests from Bennett and co....then you would be complaining about staff costs. it seems there are no concerns re the fund apart from a few vexatious individuals who having failed to find any real evidence against the mccanns wish to find any which way they can to harass and criticise them online
-
so you feel that the fund should have an extra layer of admin to deal with complaints...I'm sure they would need a massive team to deal numerous vexatious requests from Bennett and co....then you would be complaining about staff costs. it seems there are no concerns re the fund apart from a few vexatious individuals who having failed to find any real evidence against the mccanns wish to find any which way they can to harass and criticise them online
Bennett has deliberately submitted and encouraged others to submit numerous vexatious requests in an attempt to drain The Fund.
-
I know that I have. But then I have a logical mind. If there was anything worth seriously doubting then I would have found it.
Or just ignored it ?
-
Or just ignored it ?
you can't seem to understand how someone can look at the evidence...assess it and come to a different conclusion to you..we have
-
That's what IMO stands for
Why, I never knew that either. 8)--)) 8)--))
-
I didn't claim that I could telephone them, you invented that bit. The link you provided had details of how to complain/ask questions. There is a clear process laid down. The process includes what the next step is if you still aren't satisfied. The Madeleine Fund has no such instructions, no such process, and no record of even replying to questions let alone answering them. I have nothing to prove, it's the Fund which lacks proof of it's declaration being fulfilled.
What questions do you have for the Madeleine Fund then? Do you think these same questions could be asked of other "transparent and accountable" organisations and a fully transparent reply given? It would seem from what you have said re the NSPCC that you do believe this to be the case. So, how about a list of unanswered questions for the Madeleine Fund, detailing also why you feel it is morally imperative for the general public to know the answers to the questions you have posed.
-
What questions do you have for the Madeleine Fund then? Do you think these same questions could be asked of other "transparent and accountable" organisations and a fully transparent reply given? It would seem from what you have said re the NSPCC that you do believe this to be the case. So, how about a list of unanswered questions for the Madeleine Fund, detailing also why you feel it is morally imperative for the general public to know the answers to the questions you have posed.
I don't have any questions for the Fund Alf. I asked if the Fund had a moral obligation to be transparent as they promised. Promises impose a moral obligation imo so the answer is yes. I don't consider a company to be transparent if they say they have appointed a fund manager but refuse to disclose their name. There is also evidence that there are no employees, so we can only assume the position is unpaid. Having to make assumptions makes a mockery of the idea of transparency.
-
At the beginning of the case I most certainly looked at the case objectively but at this junction I think anyone who is still interested would be lying if they claimed to be looking at the facts in that way.
-
Unbelievable isnt it making millions out of a disappearance of a child, how strange and unprecedented
My thoughts precisely especially when it was raised on a false premise.
-
I don't have any questions for the Fund Alf. I asked if the Fund had a moral obligation to be transparent as they promised. Promises impose a moral obligation imo so the answer is yes. I don't consider a company to be transparent if they say they have appointed a fund manager but refuse to disclose their name. There is also evidence that there are no employees, so we can only assume the position is unpaid. Having to make assumptions makes a mockery of the idea of transparency.
The Fund is as transparent as the NSPCC (who also promise transparency and accountability), certainly as far as the accounts are concerned, from what I can see by comparing the two.
Have you a cite for the MF's refusal to name a fund manager please?
-
I disagree Angelo, we don't know if people are ringing the person/s involved in taking queries with regard to Madeleine, eg sightings, so we don't know if the search is ongoing with the fund money.
As to the McCann's suing, well the fund is there to help them financially too, they have sued when lies have been printed in papers and when Amaral wrote his book claiming Madeleine is dead.
I don't have any objection for the fund to be used in the way the McCann's have used it, every thing they have done has been to stop any lies or misinformation getting out which would jeopordise the search for Madeliene.
There is no searching going on. The McCanns take every opportunity to ask the public to search but don't do it themselves.
As far as suing for libel and telling lies is concerned it has not been established who told lies and who told the truth. The jury is still out on that one.
-
In what sense is "The Fund" a fund ?
-
Alfie
Who do you think pays the legal bills in Portugal, the travel expenses, the hotels and for witnesses to attend trials? Are you trying to infer G McCann pays all of it out of a consultants salary?
-
The Fund is as transparent as the NSPCC (who also promise transparency and accountability), certainly as far as the accounts are concerned, from what I can see by comparing the two.
Have you a cite for the MF's refusal to name a fund manager please?
Really? Please tell me then how much of the Fund's income came from donations and how much of it came from other sources. The NSPCC breaks it's income down into four categories; Donations, Gifts and Legacies 84.3%; Fundraising and Sale of Goods 5.7%; Investment Income 1.8% and Income from Charitable Activities 8.2%.
-
There is no searching going on. The McCanns take every opportunity to ask the public to search but don't do it themselves.
As far as suing for libel and telling lies is concerned it has not been established who told lies and who told the truth. The jury is still out on that one.
The McCann's use the only way to 'search' for Madeleine as no one knows where she could be, they ask that people keep a look out when
they go on holiday. How do you know they don't search for Madeleine when they go on holiday Angelo?
There were lies told when the Portuguese police said there was 100% DNA of Madeleine found in 5a.
-
Who do you think pays the legal bills, the travel expenses, the hotels and for witnesses to attend trials?
I was thinking more in terms of: "is it a fund that is invested to give a decent level of interest or is it just a big bank account"?
Looking at the interest accrued according to the filed accounts one could be forgiven for thinking the latter or maybe simply a conduit for money pass along.
-
Alfie
Who do you think pays the legal bills in Portugal, the travel expenses, the hotels and for witnesses to attend trials? Are you trying to infer G McCann pays all of it out of a consultants salary?
There is no question about that one as it is stated in The Directors Annual Report
-
Really? Please tell me then how much of the Fund's income came from donations and how much of it came from other sources. The NSPCC breaks it's income down into four categories; Donations, Gifts and Legacies 84.3%; Fundraising and Sale of Goods 5.7%; Investment Income 1.8% and Income from Charitable Activities 8.2%.
Perhaps before asking me a question, you could do me the courtesy of answering some of the several questions I have directed at you which remain unanswered. Thanks.
-
My thoughts precisely especially when it was raised on a false premise.
What false premise are you referring to Angelo?
-
Alfie
Who do you think pays the legal bills in Portugal, the travel expenses, the hotels and for witnesses to attend trials? Are you trying to infer G McCann pays all of it out of a consultants salary?
Would you kindly highlight where I inferred any such thing?
-
What false premise are you referring to Angelo?
The searching for Maddie false premise.
-
Perhaps before asking me a question, you could do me the courtesy of answering some of the several questions I have directed at you which remain unanswered. Thanks.
I have answered your questions.
You said;
The Fund is as transparent as the NSPCC (who also promise transparency and accountability), certainly as far as the accounts are concerned, from what I can see by comparing the two.
Have you a cite for the MF's refusal to name a fund manager please?
[/quote]
I then pointed out that the NSPCC give details of where their income comes from and asked you to provide comparable details from the Fund accounts. Clearly you cannot, because they're not there.
The Fund was asked this;
3) The official website states that 'an experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability'. What is the name of the Fund Administrator and when and how was he/she recruited - was the job advertised?
This reply was given;
I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:
"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."
I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.
Kind regards,
Clarence
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
-
The searching for Maddie false premise.
Well, the public have been told that the vast majority of the fund has gone "directly on search fees"
Thing is, with alot of these statements made, it can all boil down to "how one interprets it", ie that particular one might not actually mean that technically, but include in it's meaning lots of other types of expenditure. IYSWIM.
@ GU
Why would any Fund not want to divulge who the manager is? Can't really think.....
-
Well, the public have been told that the vast majority of the fund has gone "directly on search fees"
Thing is, with alot of these statements made, it can all boil down to "how one interprets it", ie that particular one might not actually mean that technically, but include in it's meaning lots of other types of expenditure. IYSWIM.
@ GU
Why would any Fund not want to divulge who the manager is? Can't really think.....
What, so he or she can be hounded by the likes of you know who I mean?
-
The searching for Maddie false premise.
Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying the Fund was not set up with the aim of helping to look for Madeleine?
-
What, so he or she can be hounded by the likes of you know who I mean?
Hmmm, that would be understandabie, as I can't really think of any other reason. Then again, if anyone wanted to "hound" they don't really need a name.
-
Well, the public have been told that the vast majority of the fund has gone "directly on search fees"
Thing is, with alot of these statements made, it can all boil down to "how one interprets it", ie that particular one might not actually mean that technically, but include in it's meaning lots of other types of expenditure. IYSWIM.
@ GU
Why would any Fund not want to divulge who the manager is? Can't really think.....
Because it is a limited company, not a "fund", where the management of the finances is the responsibility of the board of directors and company secretary if they have one. For a small company it is not a legal requirement to have company secretary.
The generally accepted understanding of a "fund" which would require a manager is:
A pool of money from many individuals which the fund manager uses to invest in a broad range of assets to grow the money on behalf of the individual investors.
What we have with "The Fund" is more like: a sum of money available for a particular purpose.
The purpose being as per "The Powers" in the Articles of Association. I posted them somewhere on here recently. 8(>((
-
OK thanks Alice, but I will opt for not giving myself a migraine by reading further
@)(++(*
-
Hmmm, that would be understandabie, as I can't really think of any other reason. Then again, if anyone wanted to "hound" they don't really need a name.
No, they need a named individual to hound, not just a title. "Dear Mr or Mrs Fund Manager we think you are shite and should be ashamed of yourself" doesn't have quite the same impact.
-
No, they need a named individual to hound, not just a title. "Dear Mr or Mrs Fund Manager we think you are shite and should be ashamed of yourself" doesn't have quite the same impact.
@)(++(*
Good one, still, the secrecy is par for the course, which is the opposite of transparency of the "charities" kind which was promised, you just have to read the website findmadeleine.com to see
http://findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
-
No, they need a named individual to hound, not just a title. "Dear Mr or Mrs Fund Manager we think you are shite and should be ashamed of yourself" doesn't have quite the same impact.
quite. I would think it really very sensible of the Fund directors not to allow any fund manager's name to be dragged through the mud and back, as theirs have been relentlessly for the last eight years.
-
*&*%£
I have answered your questions.
You said;
The Fund is as transparent as the NSPCC (who also promise transparency and accountability), certainly as far as the accounts are concerned, from what I can see by comparing the two.
Have you a cite for the MF's refusal to name a fund manager please?
I then pointed out that the NSPCC give details of where their income comes from and asked you to provide comparable details from the Fund accounts. Clearly you cannot, because they're not there.
The Fund was asked this;
3) The official website states that 'an experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability'. What is the name of the Fund Administrator and when and how was he/she recruited - was the job advertised?
This reply was given;
I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:
"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."
I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.
Kind regards,
Clarence
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
Where did these facts and figures come from?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/21-JAN9/MAIL-29-01-09FUND.jpg
-
Well, the public have been told that the vast majority of the fund has gone "directly on search fees"
Thing is, with alot of these statements made, it can all boil down to "how one interprets it", ie that particular one might not actually mean that technically, but include in it's meaning lots of other types of expenditure. IYSWIM.
@ GU
Why would any Fund not want to divulge who the manager is? Can't really think.....
I haven't the foggiest, but I know who did it from March 2009 to August 2012. It was a family friend who is in the PJ files. Perhaps that's why they preferred not to divulge her name. Her title was Campaign Manager and her duties were;
• Liaising with and organising various groups of volunteers, to ensure projects are completed in a timely manner
• Managing the Find Madeleine Website and implementing new ideas
• Providing clerical and administrative support for The McCann’s
• Organising meetings, and follow up with reports/minutes
• Storing and maintaining information and compiling databases,
• Sort, prioritise and respond to incoming correspondence
• Stock control & fulfilment of internet orders
• Maintain financial records and bank all donations received
• Letter writing and mail merge
• Providing copy for press and internet releases.
• Conducting basic research
• Fundraising: I have been involved in the organisation of major events in aid of the Fund. These have included-
A schools auction of promises
One Thousand Days Event at the Roof Garden London
Large scale fund raisers in Leicester, Liverpool and Glasgow
A Golf Day at the Park Hill Golf Club, Seagrave, Leicestershire
-
I haven't the foggiest, but I know who did it from March 2009 to August 2012. It was a family friend who is in the PJ files. Perhaps that's why they preferred not to divulge her name. Her title was Campaign Manager and her duties were;
• Liaising with and organising various groups of volunteers, to ensure projects are completed in a timely manner
• Managing the Find Madeleine Website and implementing new ideas
• Providing clerical and administrative support for The McCann’s
• Organising meetings, and follow up with reports/minutes
• Storing and maintaining information and compiling databases,
• Sort, prioritise and respond to incoming correspondence
• Stock control & fulfilment of internet orders
• Maintain financial records and bank all donations received
• Letter writing and mail merge
• Providing copy for press and internet releases.
• Conducting basic research
• Fundraising: I have been involved in the organisation of major events in aid of the Fund. These have included-
A schools auction of promises
One Thousand Days Event at the Roof Garden London
Large scale fund raisers in Leicester, Liverpool and Glasgow
A Golf Day at the Park Hill Golf Club, Seagrave, Leicestershire
Are you aware what tends to happen online to people who support the McCanns and whose identities are known, or even to people who simply happen to be related the the McCanns by marriage?
-
Are you aware what tends to happen online to people who support the McCanns and whose identities are known, or even to people who simply happen to be related the the McCanns by marriage?
Just one of the less savoury aspects of sceptics' demanding to know the answers to questions ... such as the transparency of the Fund.
-
Do they get murdered or something? Alf
Get a grip
Thanks GU
-
deleted as misread the question
-
Do they get murdered or something? Alf
Get a grip
Thanks GU
Murdered, in a manner of speaking. It's called "online character assassination" - now tell me you've no idea what I'm talking about. &%+((£
-
Murdered, in a manner of speaking. It's called "online character assassination" - now tell me you've no idea what I'm talking about. &%+((£
I see no reason for anyone to character assassinate someone who is just doing their job! And seen no evidence this person ever was subjected to anything like that.
But you and many others spend an awful amount of time character assassinating the "asking questions brigade"
-
I see no reason for anyone to character assassinate someone who is just doing their job! And seen no evidence this person ever was subjected to anything like that.
But you and many others spend an awful amount of time character assassinating the "asking questions brigade"
That is a direct accusation that will require some actual evidence. So please provide evidence of me assassinating someone's character. Now off you go and be sure to let me know what you find.
-
That is a direct accusation that will require some actual evidence. So please provide evidence of me assassinating someone's character. Now off you go and be sure to let me know what you find.
You're having a laugh, surely. It's OK if you can't see it. And I did say you and others, maybe you aren't the worse perpetrator, might give you that.
-
*&*%£
Where did these facts and figures come from?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/21-JAN9/MAIL-29-01-09FUND.jpg
They are from a newspaper I believe. The accounts were the first filed; 2007-2008. That level of detail was never given again.
-
Are you aware what tends to happen online to people who support the McCanns and whose identities are known, or even to people who simply happen to be related the the McCanns by marriage?
No, but I'm aware that those who doubt the Mccanns have been pursued by 'reporters'.
-
They are from a newspaper I believe. The accounts were the first filed; 2007-2008. That level of detail was never given again.
Was that level of detail transparent enough for you?
-
No, but I'm aware that those who doubt the Mccanns have been pursued by 'reporters'.
So, you're not aware of anyone associated with the McCanns who have been subjected to online character assassination? Are you sure?
-
Are you aware what tends to happen online to people who support the McCanns and whose identities are known, or even to people who simply happen to be related the the McCanns by marriage?
This person's name is not hard to find and i haven't heard of them having any problems. They are happy enough to put their CV on an easily accessed website.
-
Please do not mention the name here.
-
So, you're not aware of anyone associated with the McCanns who have been subjected to online character assassination? Are you sure?
alot of criticism was deserved, the driving a woman to suicide engineered by your kind (though Im sure you were not involved) is never excusable!!
-
So, you're not aware of anyone associated with the McCanns who have been subjected to online character assassination? Are you sure?
Positive. I don't gossip and I haven't seen any, except about Brenda Leyland and the 'dossier'
-
Murdered, in a manner of speaking. It's called "online character assassination" - now tell me you've no idea what I'm talking about. &%+((£
IMO anyone who even shows the slightest sympathy or support for the McCanns in public is subjected to a barrage of insults and sneers. In some cases efforts are made to 'get something on them'. It wouldn't surprise me if some people deliberately choose not to publicly show support for the McCanns because they know they will be bombarded with abuse. The following are some of the people who have been subjected to this treatment - on line if not personally.
DCI Redwood
Summers and Swan
Jim Gamble
Alan Pike,
Lorraine Kelly
Dr Sharon Leal
Phil McCann
Brian Kennedy
Clarence Mitchell
and of course Martin Brunt - who in some sceptics eyes indirectly supported the McCanns because of his visit to Brenda Leyland.
I'm sure there are many more.
-
IMO anyone who even shows the slightest sympathy or support for the McCanns in public is subjected to a barrage of insults and sneers. In some cases efforts are made to 'get something on them'. It wouldn't surprise me if some people deliberately choose not to publicly show support for the McCanns because they know they will be bombarded with abuse. The following are some of the people who have been subjected to this treatment - on line if not personally.
DCI Redwood
Summers and Swan
Jim Gamble
Alan Pike,
Lorraine Kelly
Dr Sharon Leal
Phil McCann
Brian Kennedy
Clarence Mitchell
and of course Martin Brunt - who in some sceptics eyes indirectly supported the McCanns because of his visit to Brenda Leyland.
I'm sure there are many more.
Valid Reasons are given most of the time, and please do not dismiss the onslaught on the "asking questions brigade" , you know, we are mentally ill or paedos or involved eg!
-
IMO anyone who even shows the slightest sympathy or support for the McCanns in public is subjected to a barrage of insults and sneers. In some cases efforts are made to 'get something on them'. It wouldn't surprise me if some people deliberately choose not to publicly show support for the McCanns because they know they will be bombarded with abuse. The following are some of the people who have been subjected to this treatment - on line if not personally.
DCI Redwood
Summers and Swan
Jim Gamble
Alan Pike,
Lorraine Kelly
Dr Sharon Leal
Phil McCann
Brian Kennedy
Clarence Mitchell
and of course Martin Brunt - who in some sceptics eyes indirectly supported the McCanns because of his visit to Brenda Leyland.
I'm sure there are many more.
Both sides have a lunatic fringe who get abusive - The PJ have been abused online and in the UK press, for example. I have seen abuse by supporters on Twitter which is disgusting and I have seen similar abuse by doubters.
-
Positive. I don't gossip and I haven't seen any, except about Brenda Leyland and the 'dossier'
I find that very hard to believe. Are you familiar with Tony Bennett and his output?
-
I find that very hard to believe. Are you familiar with Tony Bennett and his output?
Sorry to butt in (again when not spoken to) but Ive noticed you and others have used this board to sound off about grievances of things happening elsewhere whilst at the same time managing to conflate disparate groups and tar all with same brush, thats propaganda in my eyes, why do it? Its dishonest and offensive. tbh
-
I find that very hard to believe. Are you familiar with Tony Bennett and his output?
Are you calling me a liar Alfred? I do hope not. I am familiar with Tony Bennett's activities and opinions. I don't agree with either his opinions or his methods, but he doesn't, as far as I know, make disgusting abusive or threatening personal comments like those of 'the lunatic fringes'.
-
Are you calling me a liar Alfred? I do hope not. I am familiar with Tony Bennett's activities and opinions. I don't agree with either his opinions or his methods, but he doesn't, as far as I know, make disgusting abusive or threatening personal comments like those of 'the lunatic fringes'.
You do realise it's possible to engage in character assassination without being disgusting or abusive don't you? Tony Bennett is a master of the art. He "researches" individuals and draws rather erm...eccentric conclusions about them which he then publishes on the internet. Check out his work on Murat, Murat's son, And many, many others associated with the McCanns. This is what I am talking about, not ranting personal threats, as I'm you were well aware.
-
You do realise it's possible to engage in character assassination without being disgusting or abusive don't you? Tony Bennett is a master of the art. He "researches" individuals and draws rather erm...eccentric conclusions about them which he then publishes on the internet. Check out his work on Murat, Murat's son, And many, many others associated with the McCanns. This is what I am talking about, not ranting personal threats, as I'm you were well aware.
He's brave (or foolish) enough to put his name to what he does, I'm not. I didn't know Murat had a son? I don't think any character assassination by anyone on the internet is effective myself. As some are always saying, nobody cares what people are saying on internet forums. I haven't seen him doing that, but I haven't seen everything he's done I guess. I have to say I've seen some eccentricity on here in my short time as a member.
-
Murat wasnt "associated" with the Mccanns but DO agree Bennets onslaught on him was bordering on the obsessive
-
Sorry to butt in (again when not spoken to) but Ive noticed you and others have used this board to sound off about grievances of things happening elsewhere whilst at the same time managing to conflate disparate groups and tar all with same brush, thats propaganda in my eyes, why do it? Its dishonest and offensive. tbh
Lest you forget we we discussing possible reasons why the McCann Fund would not wish to put the name of their manager in the public domain. It would be thoroughly disingenuous of anyone to claim that friends, colleagues and supporters of the McCanns do not receive extra special scrutiny in some quarters, often resulting in attempted online character assassination of these individuals.
-
Lest you forget we we discussing possible reasons why the McCann Fund would not wish to put the name of their manager in the public domain. It would be thoroughly disingenuous of anyone to claim that friends, colleagues and supporters of the McCanns do not receive extra special scrutiny in some quarters, often resulting in attempted online character assassination of these individuals.
why do you assume the right to to discuss thngs that dont happen on here? take it up where you read it and stop whinging here
oh and PS no one claimed
that SOME people havent recieved scrutiny
maybe they deserved it too?
similar to your and others' claim that people have as a "hobby" abused the mccanns for eight years, patently untrue and an extremely ridiculous argument
-
why do you assume the right to to discuss thngs that dont happen on here? take it up where you read it and stop whinging here
oh and PS no one claimed
that SOME people havent recieved scrutiny
maybe they deserved it too?
Am I not allowed to volunteer a reason why the McCann Fund may prefer it if their Fund Manager's name was not publicised? If you don't like my posts ignore them or report them to the Mods, just quit whingeing about them, it's boring.
-
Am I not allowed to volunteer a reason why the McCann Fund may prefer it if their Fund Manager's name was not publicised? If you don't like my posts ignore them or report them to the Mods, just quit whingeing about them, it's boring.
youre twisting ducking and diving Alfie, and no, thats not allowed IMO
As to your posts, I will respond as and when and however I see fit, same as you do to others'
-
youre twisting ducking and diving Alfie, and no, thats not allowed IMO
I'm putting you back on ignore now, your posts are largely worthless IMO. Goodbye.
-
I'm putting you back on ignore now, your posts are largely worthless IMO. Goodbye.
Its OK youre allowed to run away, Im sorry if I made you feel the need to
-
He's brave (or foolish) enough to put his name to what he does, I'm not. I didn't know Murat had a son? I don't think any character assassination by anyone on the internet is effective myself. As some are always saying, nobody cares what people are saying on internet forums. I haven't seen him doing that, but I haven't seen everything he's done I guess. I have to say I've seen some eccentricity on here in my short time as a member.
Character assassination on the internet may not always have the desired effect of ruining someone's reputation in RL but I'm sure if it were you you'd rather not take any chances. In fact I'm fairly certain you wouldn't, because you currently post using an anonymous ID.
-
From "The Book".
'from the outset everyone agreed that despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency whatever it cost'.
Was this delivered?
-
From "The Book".
'from the outset everyone agreed that despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency whatever it cost'.
Was this delivered?
As far as I can see they certainly delivered transparency in the first year, then subsequently not so much. Perhaps the costs of such transparency proved prohibitive when the donations started to dry up? Perhaps a promise made with good intentions at the outset was impossible to fulfill going forward...? Or maybe they're just lying b........s who like to break their promises to give people like you (who doesn't give a shit anyway) something to write about on internet forums?
-
As far as I can see they certainly delivered transparency in the first year, then subsequently not so much. Perhaps the costs of such transparency proved prohibitive when the donations started to dry up? Perhaps a promise made with good intentions at the outset was impossible to fulfill going forward...? Or maybe they're just lying b......s who like to break their promises to give people like you (who doesn't give a shit anyway) something to write about on internet forums?
At least, bo , I am honest about why I am here.
Why are you here? Because you really believe that your posts on here will make a difference to something or other ? Pull the other bell it has legs on it (I know 8(>(().
-
At least, bo , I am honest about why I am here.
Why are you here? Because you really believe that your posts on here will make a difference to something or other ? Pull the other bell it has legs on it (I know 8(>(().
I have never claimed that my posts make a difference to anyone or anything, but I have followed this case from Day 1, I have been deeply moved and troubled by it, and therefore I DO give a shit about it. Why you who claims NOT to give a shit about it, but who expends a fair amount of time and energy "only asking questions" about it, is for you to know and for me not to give a shit about. @)(++(*
-
My thoughts precisely especially when it was raised on a false premise.
But how wonderful that they have made the money and given it to search for Madeleine
-
My thoughts precisely especially when it was raised on a false premise.
Would you like to clarify what the false premise is, Angelo?
That sounds quite a serious accusation to me.
If you are unable to clarify it, may I suggest you remove it
-
There is no searching going on. The McCanns take every opportunity to ask the public to search but don't do it themselves.
As far as suing for libel and telling lies is concerned it has not been established who told lies and who told the truth. The jury is still out on that one.
SY are searching, but we are not privy to their methods.
Kate and Gerry would not wish to jeopardize their search. They spent years searching as you well know; even if you wont admit it.
Not everyone believes that the best way to search is roam the country asking questions, looking around corners and with a spade in their hand.... as YOU have pushed as the method that YOU would use
The Drs Mccann used the more intelligent approach of getting people they believed experts to do it for them. They raised money and they organised, rather than wander around aimlessly.
Their greatest coup was getting SY involved
-
As far as I can see they certainly delivered transparency in the first year, then subsequently not so much. Perhaps the costs of such transparency proved prohibitive when the donations started to dry up? Perhaps a promise made with good intentions at the outset was impossible to fulfill going forward...? Or maybe they're just lying b......s who like to break their promises to give people like you (who doesn't give a shit anyway) something to write about on internet forums?
So there was not enough money/time/inclination ( delete where appropriate ) to fulfill their promise of full transparency yet there was to fund a rather lengthy damages case against Amaral. I see.
-
So there was not enough money/time/inclination ( delete where appropriate ) to fulfill their promise of full transparency yet there was to fund a rather lengthy damages case against Amaral. I see.
. Was there? Fair enough.
-
Would you like to clarify what the false premise is, Angelo?
That sounds quite a serious accusation to me.
If you are unable to clarify it, may I suggest you remove it
My thoughts exactly.
-
But how wonderful that they have made the money and given it to search for Madeleine
They have made the money ??? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
As far as I can see they certainly delivered transparency in the first year, then subsequently not so much. Perhaps the costs of such transparency proved prohibitive when the donations started to dry up? Perhaps a promise made with good intentions at the outset was impossible to fulfill going forward...? Or maybe they're just lying b......s who like to break their promises to give people like you (who doesn't give a shit anyway) something to write about on internet forums?
The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.
-
The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.
IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened) may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing. And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.
If a full and detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise'' or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?
Is the Pope Catholic?
-
IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened) may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing. And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.
If a full and detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise'' or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?
Is the Pope Catholic?
No he's Argentinian. @)(++(*
-
IMO any decision to limit the details to what was legally required of them (if that is what happened) may well have been made after seeing how some sceptics used the accounts simply as another method of McCann bashing. And IMO that is the real reason why some sceptics are miffed i.e. because they regard the accounts as a source of ammunition which has been limited.
If a full and detailed set of accounts was published next year - would the sceptics say ' Well done you've kept your promise'' or would they pore over every tiny detail with the sole aim of finding fault?
Is the Pope Catholic?
I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.
People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:
You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.
-
No he's Argentinian. @)(++(*
Taxi for Stephen! :-)
-
I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.
People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:
You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.
This post should be removed.
This thread is not about Amaral- there are plenty threads in here to post that. Are you enjoying using threads to goad and troll- calling all scepticss hypocrites without any evidence.?
-
I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.
People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:
You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.
Maybe Mr Amaral didnt have 70k or whatever it was the Mccanns paid to set up /administer a "fund"
edited
68 k
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg&target=tlx_picamk1
-
This post should be removed.
This thread is not about Amaral- there are plenty threads in here to post that. Are you enjoying using threads to goad and troll- calling all scepticss hypocrites without any evidence.?
We have been told to report posts as much as possible to ensure the smooth runnng of the forum, click report and cite "off topic/abusive" as a reason (or whatever other reason you can thnk of)
-
We have been told to report posts as much as possible to ensure the smooth runnng of the forum, click report and cite "off topic/abusive" as a reason (or whatever other reason you can thnk of)
yes I have reported several today
-
I have never claimed that my posts make a difference to anyone or anything, but I have followed this case from Day 1, I have been deeply moved and troubled by it, and therefore I DO give a shit about it. Why you who claims NOT to give a shit about it, but who expends a fair amount of time and energy "only asking questions" about it, is for you to know and for me not to give a shit about. @)(++(*
The "asking questions brigade" ask questions pretty much the same as you ask questions.
The same meat with different gravy. I guess you must object to the type of question rather than the principle of questioning.
-
The accounting information has to exist in order to prepare the year end accounts. Presenting the detail costs nothing, just a tad more typing, so expense doesn't enter into it. The promise was fulfilled in the first year's accounts, why would it have become impossible in subsequent years? I couldn't possibly comment on your third hypothesis. My guess is that following criticism after the release of the first year's figures they preferred not to be transparent thereafter. They broke their promise rather than defend their expenditure.
Maybe there was a change in the board of directors and a different policy was adopted?.
The book was published in 2011(?).
-
A couple of points.
As a contributor to Madeleine fund and to the Amaral fund, I regard the contribution as an unconditional gift, and therefore the organisers are free to do what they wish with it. It does not confer any rights or obligations to provide detail. As with all things, if I am unhappy with the way that things pan out I would simply not contribute again.
Which leads me onto my second point. Is there any level of detail which would satisfy the sceptic community here and elsewhere? The fund already goes way beyond the legal requirements in providing objective and professional oversight of the funds activities. I can see no possible advantage to the McCanns in providing more detail.
-
A couple of points.
As a contributor to Madeleine fund and to the Amaral fund, I regard the contribution as an unconditional gift, and therefore the organisers are free to do what they wish with it. It does not confer any rights or obligations to provide detail. As with all things, if I am unhappy with the way that things pan out I would simply not contribute again.
Which leads me onto my second point. Is there any level of detail which would satisfy the sceptic community here and elsewhere? The fund already goes way beyond the legal requirements in providing objective and professional oversight of the funds activities. I can see no possible advantage to the McCanns in providing more detail.
I can only speak for myself J-P.
Once the cash has been lobbed out, if I lob it out, I will have no control how it is spent nor would I expect to have control as it then belongs to someone else.
As a small company "The Fund" is obliged to provide financial statements to CH which are little more than a signed balance sheet and a P & L. They have an audit which is not required by CH unless a member has asked for one, so the fund go that little further in that respect. That is fine by me too; I only submit what I have to.
My main query is why state there will be "transparency" then not deliver?
I suppose it depends on one's definition of transparency.
So in a nut shell I don't care how the money is spent but don't try to pretend there is transparency when there are sums approaching £1MM as line items in the financial statements. Picky maybe but there you go.
-
I can only speak for myself J-P.
Once the cash has been lobbed out, if I lob it out, I will have no control how it is spent nor would I expect to have control as it then belongs to someone else.
As a small company "The Fund" is obliged to provide financial statements to CH which are little more than a signed balance sheet and a P & L. They have an audit which is not required by CH unless a member has asked for one, so the fund go that little further in that respect. That is fine by me too; I only submit what I have to.
My main query is why state there will be "transparency" then not deliver?
I suppose it depends on one's definition of transparency.
So in a nut shell I don't care how the money is spent but don't try to pretend there is transparency when there are sums approaching £1MM as line items in the financial statements. Picky maybe but there you go.
Fair enough Alice. I respect your view.
I imagine the logic is that the current level of transparency satisfies their supporters (=contributors), and even the most granular level of detail will not satisfy their critics(= non contributors), so from a practical point of view what is the point in providing more detail.
-
I think the rampant hypocrisy displayed by sceptics is evident in the blindness to Mr Amaral's donations by public subscription going into a private bank account set up for that purpose.
People in glass houses (in this instance a glass skyscraper) etc: etc:
You have hit the nail on the head with the obsessive pejorative scrutiny given to anything which benefits Madeleine McCann's case ... nothing more so than the running sore of the availability of money to fund the search for her.
Seems someone is obsessed with Amaral, he appears on every thread no matter what the subject. Are you suggesting that the McCanns are hiding the details of the Fund's expenditure because they don't want to be criticised? Perhaps they should instead spend the money in such a way that no criticism is possible?
-
Seems someone is obsessed with Amaral, he appears on every thread no matter what the subject. Are you suggesting that the McCanns are hiding the details of the Fund's expenditure because they don't want to be criticised? Perhaps they should instead spend the money in such a way that no criticism is possible?
Is he ever The Boogah Man?
He was only on the job for four months too.
The faithful seem to view him in much the same manner as the citizens of Kilkenny view Oliver Cromwell.
"We blame everyting on Oliver except the weather and we are working on that" unquote.
-
Is he ever The Boogah Man?
He was only on the job for four months too.
The faithful seem to view him in much the same manner as the citizens of Kilkenny view Oliver Cromwell.
"We blame everyting on Oliver except the weather and we are working on that" unquote.
Four months. That is true.
Didn't stop him stepping outside the job her was being paid for to write his "true crime" book about the case. And lining his pockets. Or at least trying to.
-
I can only speak for myself J-P.
Once the cash has been lobbed out, if I lob it out, I will have no control how it is spent nor would I expect to have control as it then belongs to someone else.
As a small company "The Fund" is obliged to provide financial statements to CH which are little more than a signed balance sheet and a P & L. They have an audit which is not required by CH unless a member has asked for one, so the fund go that little further in that respect. That is fine by me too; I only submit what I have to.
My main query is why state there will be "transparency" then not deliver?
I suppose it depends on one's definition of transparency.
So in a nut shell I don't care how the money is spent but don't try to pretend there is transparency when there are sums approaching £1MM as line items in the financial statements. Picky maybe but there you go.
Genuine question - as you profess not to care about anything much to do with this issue why expend so much time and energy questioning it?
-
Is he ever The Boogah Man?
He was only on the job for four months too.
The faithful seem to view him in much the same manner as the citizens of Kilkenny view Oliver Cromwell.
"We blame everyting on Oliver except the weather and we are working on that" unquote.
Obviously a dangerous man who must be silenced. I wonder why? Perhaps he has that jigsaw piece?
-
Genuine question - as you profess not to care about anything much to do with this issue why expend so much time and energy questioning it?
You didn't answer my question so why should I answer yours? unquote ?{)(**
Nevertheless work it out from this:
The accounts for "The Fund" available to the public, patently are not transparent (except for 2007/8). Anyone who understands company accounts realises that. I am however content with "The Fund" doing only what is required by law. They [The Fund] suggested they were going to do more but didn't which is the crux of the matter. Me, I would have approached it in a different manner but that's not important.
Similarly, earlier this year there was a broohaha on here about whether the accounts were filed late. Again I don't care whether they were late or early but the Companies House document list says they were filed late so I believe Companies House; why would one not?. You need to understand what "filed" means of course.
So my interest is not so much in the case but in why a group of otherwise intelligent people should try to pretend so many things are other than they really are, are happy to misrepresent, play with words, leave out relevant points, pass off etc just to make a point that suits their agenda in support of two people they do not know, then resort to name calling etc when questioned.
Sort of the reciprocal of your reasons for being here in a way; I guess 8(0(*
Then of course it is addictive.
-
Is he ever The Boogah Man?
He was only on the job for four months too.
The faithful seem to view him in much the same manner as the citizens of Kilkenny view Oliver Cromwell.
"We blame everyting on Oliver except the weather and we are working on that" unquote.
Didn't realise Cromwell was a bent incompetent copper
-
Obviously a dangerous man who must be silenced. I wonder why? Perhaps he has that jigsaw piece?
You are joking. Some seem to see him as a hero to be admired, a man of integrity.
Personally, I see him as a bent incompetent copper who saw a chance to make some money on the back of a missing little girl. And as soon as he got his hands on some dosh he set about spending it like a nouveau riche chav - the jag, the earring (he's a fifty year old bloke for gods sake) the parties, cosmetic surgery for the missus.
I think the facts, and the authorities that actually matter, rather support my viewpoint.
-
You are joking. Some seem to see him as a hero to be admired, a man of integrity.
Personally, I see him as a bent incompetent copper who saw a chance to make some money on the back of a missing little girl. And as soon as he got his hands on some dosh he set about spending it like a nouveau riche chav - the jag, the earring (he's a fifty year old bloke for gods sake) the parties, cosmetic surgery for the missus.
I think the facts, and the authorities that actually matter, rather support my viewpoint.
Now as to bent coppers, here's a turn up for the books, and just look how many are in the Met ? (2012)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081199/Criminal-record-1k-officers-convictions-police.html
I WONDER WHAT THE FIGURES ARE NOW ? &%+((£
-
Seems someone is obsessed with Amaral, he appears on every thread no matter what the subject. Are you suggesting that the McCanns are hiding the details of the Fund's expenditure because they don't want to be criticised? Perhaps they should instead spend the money in such a way that no criticism is possible?
[/b]
I presume you had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you typed that G-Unit.
In my experience - the rule of thumb amongst sceptics is:-
'Everything the McCanns do is wrong - and everything the McCanns say is wrong' . And that's how it's been for as long as I've been following the case.
Nothing but NOTHING goes uncriticised - and when even raising money for charity is used as something to criticise them for - then what chance do they stand of doing/saying anything that won't get criticised.
'No chance' is the answer.
-
The question mccann supporters don't like to answer is simple.
Would the mccanns have 'participated' in any of these charities but for what happened in Portugal ?
Did they do so before 2007 ?
Have they taken part in these events, merely because it's 'good' PR ?
-
The question mccann supporters don't like to answer is simple.
Would the mccanns have 'participated' in any of these charities but for what happened in Portugal ?
Did they do so before 2007 ?
Have they taken part in these events, merely because it's 'good' PR ?
I rest my case.
-
I rest my case.
You have no case.
Did the mccanns take part in fund raising for charities prior to 2007 ?
-
The question mccann supporters don't like to answer is simple.
Would the mccanns have 'participated' in any of these charities but for what happened in Portugal ?
Did they do so before 2007 ?
Have they taken part in these events, merely because it's 'good' PR ?
I undertook a sponsored walk around the coastal path of the Isle of Wight to raise money for a hospice local to where I live.
Why did I do that?
Because just before his death, the hospice cared for my father, superbly well, and I wanted to say 'thank you'.
It is extremely common that personal involvement in something worthwhile (no matter what) is the incentive and spur for people to get off their backsides and support it.
-
Now as to bent coppers, here's a turn up for the books, and just look how many are in the Met ? (2012)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081199/Criminal-record-1k-officers-convictions-police.html
I WONDER WHAT THE FIGURES ARE NOW ? &%+((£
Yet you are convinced Drs McCann would have never worked again had they been accused of neglect
-
Yet you are convinced Drs McCann would have never worked again had they been accused of neglect
They did neglect their children.
They did not take of their children.
and we know what happened.
So dave, do you support police officers with current convictions should still be working in the force ?
-
They did neglect their children.
They did not take of their children.
and we know what happened.
So dave, do you support police officers with current convictions should still be working in the force ?
Quit pretending that you know better than the Portuguese prosecutors.
You don't.
-
Quit pretending that you know better than the Portuguese prosecutors.
You don't.
So where's Madeleine.
and whose neglect of their children resulted in her disappearance, cause undetermined ?
-
So where's Madeleine.
and whose neglect of their children resulted in her disappearance, cause undetermined ?
Blame the abductor for Madeleine's disappearance.
-
I undertook a sponsored walk around the coastal path of the Isle of Wight to raise money for a hospice local to where I live.
Why did I do that?
Because just before his death, the hospice cared for my father, superbly well, and I wanted to say 'thank you'.
It is extremely common that personal involvement in something worthwhile (no matter what) is the incentive and spur for people to get off their backsides and support it.
and are you the only person to help a charity.
Most people do it, without the 'need' to appear in the National Newspapers.
-
Blame the abductor for Madeleine's disappearance.
Cause of disappearance undetermined ferryman.
Stick to the facts.
-
Please stick to the topic of thread
-
You didn't answer my question so why should I answer yours? unquote ?{)(**
Nevertheless work it out from this:
The accounts for "The Fund" available to the public, patently are not transparent (except for 2007/8). Anyone who understands company accounts realises that. I am however content with "The Fund" doing only what is required by law. They [The Fund] suggested they were going to do more but didn't which is the crux of the matter. Me, I would have approached it in a different manner but that's not important.
Similarly, earlier this year there was a broohaha on here about whether the accounts were filed late. Again I don't care whether they were late or early but the Companies House document list says they were filed late so I believe Companies House; why would one not?. You need to understand what "filed" means of course.
So my interest is not so much in the case but in why a group of otherwise intelligent people should try to pretend so many things are other than they really are, are happy to misrepresent, play with words, leave out relevant points, pass off etc just to make a point that suits their agenda in support of two people they do not know, then resort to name calling etc when questioned.
Sort of the reciprocal of your reasons for being here in a way; I guess 8(0(*
Then of course it is addictive.
What question of yours have I not answered?
As for this year's accounts being filed late, even Enid O'Dowd doesn't claim that they were, but let's not revisit that old argument again (unless you're REALLY bored and have run out of other things to nit-pick and enjoy reliving Groundhog Day).
-
You have no case.
Did the mccanns take part in fund raising for charities prior to 2007 ?
I think the onus is on you to provide proof that they didn't.
I understand Gerry McCann actively worked with a charity prior to 2007. Whether he fund raised I have no idea, but he gave of his time. Not untypical of members of the medical profession - especially those who work for the NHS.
-
Please stick to the topic of thread
not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY.
-
I think the onus is on you to provide proof that they didn't.
I understand Gerry McCann actively worked with a charity prior to 2007. Whether he fund raised I have no idea, but he gave of his time. Not untypical of members of the medical profession - especially those who work for the NHS.
Did they court publicity in the national press before 2007 ?
-
not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY.
MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.
-
MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.
Has ferryman received points for the abusive comment to me ?
-
not going to whoosh any off topic theads? or people being called idiot? but you can swipe my on topic post? TWICE TODAY.
I have just had a (factual) post deleted too,in reply to Ferryman's at 5.36 PM
If the reason was "off topic" then his post and other related ones regarding "neglect" should not be standing
-
Has ferryman received points for the abusive comment to me ?
I think you might be confusing factually accurate comment with 'abuse'.
-
MTI, The idiot comment was deleted, I believe. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have a problem please take it up with Admin or report the posts that are causing you grief or discomfort.
People's post do not cause me grief, no one here has that power over me. I have had posts swooshed today for no good reason. I wonder if some are playing the 'complaint card' just to get rid of posts! I do hope ADMIN will look into this.
-
[/b]
I presume you had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you typed that G-Unit.
In my experience - the rule of thumb amongst sceptics is:-
'Everything the McCanns do is wrong - and everything the McCanns say is wrong' . And that's how it's been for as long as I've been following the case.
Nothing but NOTHING goes uncriticised - and when even raising money for charity is used as something to criticise them for - then what chance do they stand of doing/saying anything that won't get criticised.
'No chance' is the answer.
Just like their supporters I don't care if they spent it all on lollypops. The difference is I wouldn't praise them for doing it. If someone promises transparency but doesn't deliver it then you can't blame people who wonder why? No criticism is possible unless people behave in such a way as to appear evasive.
-
Just like their supporters I don't care if they spent it all on lollypops. The difference is I wouldn't praise them for doing it. If someone promises transparency but doesn't deliver it then you can't blame people who wonder why? No criticism is possible unless people behave in such a way as to appear evasive.
Indeed. and for the third time... has anyone got a good reason for them not to provide transperancy?
-
I think you might be confusing factually accurate comment with 'abuse'.
I know exactly what you are, but I'm too polite to do so on here.
Though it has been said by others elsewhere. 8**8:/:
and that doesn't include your unmitigated devotion to the mccanns. 8)-)))
-
You are joking. Some seem to see him as a hero to be admired, a man of integrity.
Personally, I see him as a bent incompetent copper who saw a chance to make some money on the back of a missing little girl. And as soon as he got his hands on some dosh he set about spending it like a nouveau riche chav - the jag, the earring (he's a fifty year old bloke for gods sake) the parties, cosmetic surgery for the missus.
I think the facts, and the authorities that actually matter, rather support my viewpoint.
He didn't realise that only certain people are allowed to make money off the back of a missing little girl.
-
He didn't realise that only certain people are allowed to make money off the back of a missing little girl.
so he thought everyone could...nice...for once I agree with you
-
so he thought everyone could...nice...for once I agree with you
So who else has made money from this case ?
Clearly S and S made b....r all.
-
So who else has made money from this case ?
Clearly S and S made b....r all.
@)(++(*
Serves them right too
-
The parents made a lot of money from MADDIES fate (what ever that was/is). the media continue to make money as - do the parents. I think this is disgusting... and this post will get whooshed. even though it is factual!
-
@)(++(*
Serves them right too
Great book rehashing known material.
As for the opening pages, pure Mills and Boon.
-
The parents made a lot of money from MADDIES fate (what ever that was/is). the media continue to make money as - do the parents. I think this is disgusting... and this post will get whooshed. even though it is factual!
that is so not true...but like others continue to believe lies...it's far more interesting than the truth
-
that is so not true...but like others continue to believe lies...it's far more interesting than the truth
Why is it untrue ?
-
Great book rehashing known material.
As for the opening pages, pure Mills and Boon.
Mills and Boon more interesting, not always that predictable!
-
Why is it untrue ?
because it's untrue
-
Mills and Boon more interesting, not always that predictable!
Have you read the opening page ?
It was hard to stomach ?
-
because it's untrue
That is a meaningless statement.
-
that is so not true...but like others continue to believe lies...it's far more interesting than the truth
Even with the lack of promised transprency, the Parents of Maddie have enjoyed, world travel, best hotels, made money from book. They will have money in a bank account making interest I am sure of that.
Now for a family who went on an almost shoe string 'family' holiday- who seemed to spend little time with their family, tried to get discounts, enjoyed the 'free' wine and didn't fork out cash to pay for babysitting service. I think it is clear to everyone that they have enjoyed financial gain from their daughters fate.
They have also enjoyed celebrity status and access to millions of tax payers hard earned cash to 'look' for their daughter. Have they ever gone back to PORTUGAL to LOOK FOR MADDIE themselves? 'Maddie' is a business and they are making money from it!
-
Have you read the opening page ?
It was hard to stomach ?
I probably came across it, but nothing much to write home about. I wouldn't buy that book as it seemed a lazy and sycophantic attempt by so called investigative journalists who just managed to do a selective precis of what was already on the internet for anyone to read.
Meh!
Vanished by Danny Collins was a good read.
-
Just like their supporters I don't care if they spent it all on lollypops. The difference is I wouldn't praise them for doing it. If someone promises transparency but doesn't deliver it then you can't blame people who wonder why? No criticism is possible unless people behave in such a way as to appear evasive.
so if the Madeleine Fund itemized every single item purchased and it amounted to a million lollipops last year, then you'd have no criticism for them as they had been fully transparent? Yeah, I'm sure.
-
What question of yours have I not answered?
As for this year's accounts being filed late, even Enid O'Dowd doesn't claim that they were, but let's not revisit that old argument again (unless you're REALLY bored and have run out of other things to nit-pick and enjoy reliving Groundhog Day).
Enid O'Dowd is a spokesperson for Companies House?
You asked, I told. Let's call it a day at that and enjoy ourselves in our respective fox holes.
I am sure I will find another mill pond to chuck a corporation flag into before long 8(0(*
-
Enid O'Dowd is a spokesperson for Companies House?
You asked, I told. Let's call it a day at that and enjoy ourselves in our respective fox holes.
I am sure I will find another mill pond to chuck a corporation flag into before long 8(0(*
No, Enid O'Dowd is supposedly a forensic accountant with years of experience whose specialist subject for the last 8 years has been the Madeleine Fund. She is highly thought of amongst the "Only Asking Questions" brigade and even more of a nit-picker than you. Still, you probably know best, being the resident smart-arse and all.
-
No, Enid O'Dowd is supposedly a forensic accountant with years of experience whose specialist subject for the last 8 years has been the Madeleine Fund. She is highly thought of amongst the "Only Asking Questions" brigade and even more of a nit-picker than you. Still, you probably know best, being the resident smart-arse and all.
Cite please forEnid O Dowd nitpicking around the Mccanns Fund for eight years! As to her qualifications they are not "supposed", she IS an accountant, and seeing what her profession is, nitpicking is the name of the game! Who would want a slapdash accountant?
@)(++(*
-
Cite please forEnid O Dowd nitpicking around the Mccanns Fund for eight years! As to her qualifications they are not "supposed", she IS an accountant, and seeing what her profession is, nitpicking is the name of the game! Who would want a slapdash accountant?
@)(++(*
Is she a FORENSIC accountant as davel questioned?
Is she Chartered?
-
Is she a FORENSIC accountant as davel questioned?
Is she Chartered?
Don't you know ?
-
No, Enid O'Dowd is supposedly a forensic accountant with years of experience whose specialist subject for the last 8 years has been the Madeleine Fund. She is highly thought of amongst the "Only Asking Questions" brigade and even more of a nit-picker than you. Still, you probably know best, being the resident smart-arse and all.
I thought you didn't want to raise this subject again?. Ah well one judges a person by their deeds not their words.
-
Some info on Enid O'Dowd for anyone who is interested.
http://www.enidodowd.com/about_us.html
-
Some info on Enid O'Dowd for anyone who is interested.
http://www.enidodowd.com/about_us.html
Is she a Forensic Accountant?
-
so if the Madeleine Fund itemized every single item purchased and it amounted to a million lollipops last year, then you'd have no criticism for them as they had been fully transparent? Yeah, I'm sure.
As I said, I wouldn't praise them for it, but I wouldn't be talking about the lack of transparency of the Fund, would I?
-
Is she a FORENSIC accountant as davel questioned?
Is she Chartered?
Yes she is chartered.
As to whether she is a forensic accountant, I do not know, b ut reading her very lengthy and detailed and meticulous analysis of the accounts should tell you that she knows what she is talking about, unless you have any criticsm of anythng she has written. Then do share. Instead of questioning credentials perhaps just read the facts.
-
Is she a Forensic Accountant?
There is no need for a Forensic Accountant to see there is a lack of transparency in the Fund accounts. A Forensic Accountant looks for evidence of malpractice, but they would need access to all the transactions during the financial year. As no-one has that access the question is immaterial.
-
Yes she is chartered.
As to whether she is a forensic accountant, I do not know, b ut reading her very lengthy and detailed and meticulous analysis of the accounts should tell you that she knows what she is talking about, unless you have any criticsm of anythng she has written. Then do share. Instead of questioning credentials perhaps just read the facts.
Nicely put Mercury. 8@??)(
-
Yes she is chartered.
As to whether she is a forensic accountant, I do not know, b ut reading her very lengthy and detailed and meticulous analysis of the accounts should tell you that she knows what she is talking about, unless you have any criticsm of anythng she has written. Then do share. Instead of questioning credentials perhaps just read the facts.
May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?
-
As I said, I wouldn't praise them for it, but I wouldn't be talking about the lack of transparency of the Fund, would I?
There's a difference between "not praising them" and "actively criticising them" - it's patently obvious that despite the much yearned for transparency on your part it would not stop you criticising them to the moon and back. Please be honest now...
-
May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?
She found plenty to "only ask questions" about. She's also cashed in on Madeleine's disappearance by writing a fiction book inspired by case events, in which she allows herself to occupy the moral highground concerning the so-called neglect issue.
-
May I ask - did this lady find anything amiss with the accounts - i.e. from a legal point of view?
she wasn't looking at them in that way, we all know they fulfill legal requirements. she was looking at them from a 'transparency' viewpoint, and found no transparency.
-
There's a difference between "not praising them" and "actively criticising them" - it's patently obvious that despite the much yearned for transparency on your part it would not stop you criticising them to the moon and back. Please be honest now...
I'm glad you noticed Alfred, top marks for observation. Do I yearn? No, I do not. I notice when people break promises though and i wonder why. Then I try to work out why. No emotions are involved at all, actually. I point out discrepancies, it is others (who possibly are emotionally involved) who describe that as 'criticising'.
-
There is no need for a Forensic Accountant to see there is a lack of transparency in the Fund accounts. A Forensic Accountant looks for evidence of malpractice, but they would need access to all the transactions during the financial year. As no-one has that access the question is immaterial.
For one with enough interest in making money from Madeleine McCann's case to write a book? it must have escaped her attention that there are two associated funds.
One was set up for the purpose of aiding Madeleine McCann the other was set up to benefit Mr Amaral ... therefore discussion and comparison of one cannot be achieved without discussion and comparison of the other, 'transparency' and lateness of publishing annual accounts etc.
Does any one have any idea when Ms O'dowd is going to publish a 'forensic' or otherwise analysis of the accounts for the Amaral Fund account?
Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.
-
All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.
You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts. It's as plain as day that as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns. And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time. They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.
IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns. One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.
Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!
IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.
Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.
-
All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.
You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts. It's as plain as day that as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns. And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time. They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.
IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns. One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.
Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!
IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.
Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.
As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.
They didn't deliver.
-
All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.
You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts. It's as plain as day that as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns. And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time. They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.
IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns. One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.
Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!
IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.
Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.
Very good post' Bernice. The only point in changing the way in which the accounts are presented would be:
(a) to bring in more donations (I am not sure they need more funds at present, and most of the past and present donors do not have a problem)
(b) to appease the septics (who will contribute only bile anyway)
-
As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.
They didn't deliver.
Yes they have - just not to your exacting standards. Get over it. *&*%£
-
As you are well aware, the mccanns PROMISED full and transparent accounts.
They didn't deliver.
Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?
-
Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?
She has merely reinforced her mccann supporting credentials.
The rest of her statement is irrelevant.
-
Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?
Doubtless not.
But then, what would peasants like auditors know? ....
-
Doubtless not.
But then, what would peasants like auditors know? ....
Do the job they're told to and paid for.
-
Do the job they're told to and paid for.
LOL ... have you ever had the auditors in?? ... rhetorical question ... quite obviously you have not.
-
Do the job they're told to and paid for.
Thereby betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the function and responsibilities of an auditor. Thank you Stephen - don't callus, we'll call you......
-
Thereby betraying a complete lack of knowledge of the function and responsibilities of an auditor. Thank you Stephen - don't callus, we'll call you......
Auditors can only deal with the information they are given.
Not with with-held data.
-
and what of Enid O'Dowd JP ?
-
Auditors can only deal with the information they are given.
Not with with-held data.
Have any of the accounts been qualified?
-
Apart from the sceptics who walk among us whose motives Benice has succinctly summed up ... is there anyone who really matters expressing concerns about alleged "lack of transparency" ~ for example ~ the auditors?
And what about the Inland Revenue. I can just imagine the letters that go to them every year putting them right about the 'fraudulent fund'.
IMO the Tax inspector involved would make absolutely certain that there was nothing untoward in the accounts to prevent any possibility of a come-back at a later date. Because of that it is probably the case that the Fund accounts are examined far more closely than other accounts before they are approved.
AFAIK the Inland Revenue have found nothing amiss re the accounts.
The fact that the only people finding fault are sceptics - says it all IMO. Full stop.
-
and what of Enid O'Dowd JP ?
What of her?
-
And what about the Inland Revenue. I can just imagine the letters that go to them every year putting them right about the 'fraudulent fund'.
IMO the Tax inspector involved would make absolutely certain that there was nothing untoward in the accounts to prevent any possibility of a come-back at a later date. Because of that it is probably the case that the Fund accounts are examined far more closely than other accounts before they are approved.
AFAIK the Inland Revenue have found nothing amiss re the accounts.
The fact that the only people finding fault are sceptics - says it all IMO. Full stop.
What have HMRC got to do with it? As long as they aren't incorrectly declaring income and claiming allowances, then they don't care what the fund does?
-
What have HMRC got to do with it? As long as they aren't incorrectly declaring income and claiming allowances, then they don't care what the fund does?
I think the point is that it would be surprising if companies house, HMRC, HaysMac et al have not received a deluge of letters and emails about the "fraudulent fund" - it will therefore have been subject to closer than usual scrutiny.
Good Audit firms are jealous of their reputation, and if in doubt about the quality of the information being provided will qualify the accounts. I have not seen any such qualification on any of the fund accounts.
-
I think the point is that it would be surprising if companies house, HMRC, HaysMac et al have not received a deluge of letters and emails about the "fraudulent fund" - it will therefore have been subject to closer than usual scrutiny.
Good Audit firms are jealous of their reputation, and if in doubt about the quality of the information being provided will qualify the accounts. I have not seen any such qualification on any of the fund accounts.
Indeed JP.
It would be better if they had just shown themselves to be trustworthy,by being transparent -even if they got a little criticism from zealots about buying expensive carrots or other silly items.
They have just brought about suspicion by being 'secretive' or less open. by that I mean not breaking down income and expendature. A few rows on the trial balance is all it takes for a non trading company.
-
Yes they have - just not to your exacting standards. Get over it. *&*%£
It depends on your definition of transparent. The 2007-2008 accounts were acceptably transparent. Subsequent accounts haven't been.
-
LOL ... have you ever had the auditors in?? ... rhetorical question ... quite obviously you have not.
I have worked with auditors and transparency is not one of the items they are interested in. LOL
-
I have worked with auditors and transparency is not one of the items they are interested in. LOL
LOL quite. Auditors work with GIVEN figures, they do not insert them into accounts records/apps. Tsk.
also, they do not question about income or expenditure unless there is an anomaly ie over or under at trial balance.
-
All this righteous indignation about broken promises and transparency is just a smoke-screen IMO.
You only have to read elsewhere to see how sceptics look forward with fevered anticipation to the release of the accounts. It's as plain as day that as far as they are concerned it's a source of ammunition - which they can then venomously fire at the McCanns. And it's a new source - so a nice change from going over and over old stuff all the time. They watch like vultures, their first hope being that the accounts will have been submitted late.
IMO The only reason they want to have more detailed accounts is because that will provide them with even more things to find fault with and to slag off the McCanns. One thing they won't be doing is commenting on how transparent the accounts are.
Why on earth would the McCanns want to help them to do that!
IMO Those sceptics are complaining because the McCanns won't oblige those people whose only aim is to attack and vilify them and who use the accounts for that purpose.
Anyone who thinks that isn't the case is deluding themselves IMO.
8@??)(
-
It depends on your definition of transparent. The 2007-2008 accounts were acceptably transparent. Subsequent accounts haven't been.
Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days?
-
Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days?
Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea
-
Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea
Yes! their arrogance is noted! oh to make money from your daughters dissapearance- yeah they get the last laugh hooray!
-
Yes! their arrogance is noted! oh to make money from your daughters dissapearance- yeah they get the last laugh hooray!
I'm sure you are one who gives them them some of the best entertainment
-
Could the mccanns be doing this on purpose. File as little information as pos then having a good laugh at the indignation of their detractors on the net.....what a brilliant idea
It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.
-
Do we as civilised human beings have a moral obligation not to continually keep criticising and harping on about this (non) issue until the end of days?
Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,
-
Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,
Precisely.
Something they never did.
-
It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.
Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.
-
They did attempt to provide extra information for the first year's accounts, which was when a lot of the money came from well-wishing small donors. And that money has long since been spent. If any of the larger donors wanted more information, they could simply have asked (or perhaps it was sent to them). Some of them may well have been involved in trying to set up services for them, and would be aware of the costs involved.
Why the GBP feels entitled to have the entire accounting online to scrutinise, criticise (when the auditors and the tax office don't appear to have a problem) and have their private lives including their homes photographed is beyond me. It's quite possibly why they didn't go beyond the necessary in subsequent years.
-
They did attempt to provide extra information for the first year's accounts, which was when a lot of the money came from well-wishing small donors. And that money has long since been spent. If any of the larger donors wanted more information, they could simply have asked (or perhaps it was sent to them). Some of them may well have been involved in trying to set up services for them, and would be aware of the costs involved.
Why the GBP feels entitled to have the entire accounting online to scrutinise, criticise (when the auditors and the tax office don't appear to have a problem) and have their private lives including their homes photographed is beyond me. It's quite possibly why they didn't go beyond the necessary in subsequent years.
It wasn't 'an attempt' it was an acceptable level of detail to fulfill their promise of transparency. Which larger donors? There is no cost involved in adding a bit more detail, there is more work in collating the information under less detailed headings.
I agree that they provided less detail in subsequent years due to criticism. One newspaper calculated that a very small percentage of the income had been spent on search-related activities. That's the most likely reason why they broke their promise.
-
Stop any time you wish Alfred. There is no moral obligation on you to do anything as far as I know. The moral obligation was upon the organisers of the Fund to keep their promises,
I am not invested in the constant harping on and criticising of the parents of a missing child - you are. In my opinion that is not a particularly moral position to take, though you no doubt think the reverse is true and that you are some sort of morally superior being for asking the question in the first place. However, please remember that everyone breaks promises from time to time and for one reason or another, even marvellous ol' you have done I expect (unless you're a saint, which I somehow doubt).
So, the Madeleine Fund was only fully transparent (by your standards) for one year, the one year in which the general public's donations were at their peak. Subsequently, for reasons best known to the Fund's directors the published accounts were less detailed. The only people who seem to see this as a terrible betrayal of trust are the same people who never liked the McCanns in the first place, always suspected them of something malevolent and probably never donated to the Fund anyway. Why is this? Can you explain it please?
-
Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.
There is a difference between "not giving a monkey's" and preferring not to dignify "sceptics" nonsense with any sort of attention. The McCanns are far too dignified to get embroiled in childish forum nonsense, something to their credit and to which we should really all aspire to. 8)--))
-
It's a nice idea but I doubt it somehow, they have other things to think about and I shouldn't think winding up the "sceptics" is very high on their list of priorities.
I'm having some light entertainment myself....things change..I don't think the mccanns have any moral obligation to be transparent.......the only people requesting transparency are those who spend most of their life attacking the mccanns and they have no right to talk about morals
-
I'm having some light entertainment myself....things change..I don't think the mccanns have any moral obligation to be transparent.......the only people requesting transparency are those who spend most of their life attacking the mccanns and they have no right to talk about morals
I agree. When it all comes out that Madeleine was ddefinitely abducted and her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance then their behaviour over the last 8 years will stand as an appalling testament to their own lack of morals, judgement and human decency. Some might show a little contrition, the majority won't however, IMO - they'll STILL harp on about things like the "lack of transparency" of the fund, as some sort of justification for their behaviour.
-
Quite. They don't give a monkey's do they, so why all their supporters spend hours having a go at the 'sceptics' on their behalf I can't imagine.
Because we believe in justice and we can't stand bullies...that's why I post
-
There is a difference between "not giving a monkey's" and preferring not to dignify "sceptics" nonsense with any sort of attention. The McCanns are far too dignified to get embroiled in childish forum nonsense, something to their credit and to which we should really all aspire to. 8)--))
Who's making you get 'embroiled in childish forum nonsense' then? Why do you 'dignify sceptic's nonsense' with attention? How undignified of you. It seems that saying one thing and doing another is not restricted to 'Team McCann'
-
Who's making you get 'embroiled in childish forum nonsense' then? Why do you 'dignify sceptic's nonsense' with attention? How undignified of you. It seems that saying one thing and doing another is not restricted to 'Team McCann'
My comment was made tongue in cheek. I fully acknowledge that what we all do here is IMO sometimes quite childish and undignified, and often plain bad manners, and occasionally very unkind. The McCanns sensibly avoid social media shenanigans and usually don't dignify it with any sort of response. I'm certainly not so restrained, nor as mature - at least I'm honest enough to admit it.
-
Pull the other one.
Eek!
Could we stay on topic please.
-
Because we believe in justice and we can't stand bullies...that's why I post
Are you a 'we' or an 'I'? Just interested. Lack of bias? I think not. There is no bullying on this forum in case you hadn't noticed, so you may be in the wrong place. Anyway, these posts are off topic as we are discussing the transparency or otherwise of the Madeleine's Fund accounts.
Justice;
fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship;
Bullying;
Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others.
-
Rules of engagement please gentlemen.
-
It wasn't 'an attempt' it was an acceptable level of detail to fulfill their promise of transparency. Which larger donors? There is no cost involved in adding a bit more detail, there is more work in collating the information under less detailed headings.
I agree that they provided less detail in subsequent years due to criticism. One newspaper calculated that a very small percentage of the income had been spent on search-related activities. That's the most likely reason why they broke their promise.
I remember that article in some PT tabloid rag. The costs involved in the awareness campaign, legal fees related to facilitating her rescue if she was found abroad, and whatever else, was not deemed to be money spent on "searching", apparently.