How did the Find Madeleine website cost £36.000?

[G-Unit]

What a cheap shot.

The fact is the McCanns could be living in luxury if they had not decided to put over a million pounds of their own money into the fund - apart of course from the £50,000 settlement they received for libel - which they gave to two charities.

In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.

[G-Unit]

So first class travel and 5 star hotels were never used..............

As to the libel payout to the charity, useful PR eh.

As the case was settled out of court that may have been a condition suggested by the newspaper.  It may not have been, but usually they pay such settlements into the fund, so I do wonder why this one was different.

[sadie]

In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.

Benice is right.

They gave their OWN money.


Accept the truth, Gunit.

[stephen25000]

Benice is right.

They gave their OWN money.


Accept the truth, Gunit.

Get it right Sadie.

The money they have obtained,  and I use that word carefully, they would never had got if they'd taken care of their children in the first place.

[Alice Purjorick]

I bet YOU dont fuss with insignificant details with other Funds, Alice.


I wonder how much they spent on paper clips and tea bags? %&5%£

Surely they will have got that detailed up *&*%£

Has this any relevance to what I posted?

[Brietta]

In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.

Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.

I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.

There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison. 

[stephen25000]

Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.

I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.

There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison.

Why is sceptical questioning an investigation which has found out nothing at all of any consequence ?

[Brietta]

Why is sceptical questioning an investigation which has found out nothing at all of any consequence ?

Oh sorry, is that what you are doing ... it came over to me as just another invalid criticism of the Drs McCann throwing 'other peoples' hard earned cash all over the internet.
One wonders at the quality of questioning that in eight years has been unable to uncover or recognise any answers which don't fit with the sceptic fables.

[stephen25000]

Oh sorry, is that what you are doing ... it came over to me as just another invalid criticism of the Drs McCann throwing 'other peoples' hard earned cash all over the internet.
One wonders at the quality of questioning that in eight years has been unable to uncover or recognise any answers which don't fit with the sceptic fables.

What has the website achieved ?

and yes, it was a waste of other peoples money.

You got that right.

[mercury]

Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.

I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.

There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison.

Err, err, exaggerating  and embroidering the truth again are we?


 

Why on earth would anyne want to do that?

PS get it straight! asking what the f** cost 36000 pounds for a two bit website is not quibbling about halfpennies!

[Alfred R Jones]

Were it transparent you wouldn't be floundering around trying to guess or justify. It would there for all to see;
no fuss no muss 

Define transparent.  What level should the accounts go to in order to explain the £36k costs, in your view?  Or is the real answer that you don't really care, you're just here for the laffs?

[Alice Purjorick]

Define transparent.  What level should the accounts go to in order to explain the £36k costs, in your view?  Or is the real answer that you don't really care, you're just here for the laffs?

Transparent reporting on any project/company finances necessitates all significant expenditure to be itemised such that the overall build up is visible to those who have a right to be monitoring it.
If 36k is a single order value with an itemised schedule there is no need for further breakdown. If 36k is a summation of several different items and orders I would expect to see all those items listed. Pretty f*****g basic project management really. Except in this neck of woods of course 

[Eleanor]

Transparent reporting on any project/company finances necessitates all significant expenditure to be itemised such that the overall build up is visible to those who have a right to be monitoring it.
If 36k is a single order value with an itemised schedule there is no need for further breakdown. If 36k is a summation of several different items and orders I would expect to see all those items listed. Pretty f*****g basic project management really. Except in this neck of woods of course 

The Accountants know, and so does The Inland Revenue.  They are all that matter.

And I don't expect you to donate any time soon.  I never have.  Charity begins at home on my State Pension.

[Alice Purjorick]

The Accountants know, and so does The Inland Revenue.  They are all that matter.

And I don't expect you to donate any time soon.  I never have.  Charity begins at home on my State Pension.

I think Companies House also have a say in the matter. That is not inviting comment just stating a fact.
The question posed by Alf was "what is transparency?". Transparency is independent of who is looking at it.
Except on here of course, where I expect there are even two versions of the basic laws of physics according to whether one is a McCann Sceptic or Supporter.
Ho hum  *&*%£

[mercury]

transparent means clear
there is no clarity for the 36k stated costs of the website in the Mccanns first year accounts, a very large sum for something which rarely if ever costs that much

funnily enough the first years accounts actually itemised a great deal more than further ones, now that is definitely not transparent