MORALS

[Angelo222]

Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??

[AnneGuedes]

A criminal record perhaps?? 

I was wondering why Carana suggested politics and gala were related.

[Angelo222]

Which legal costs associated with Madeleine's disappearance ?

Does Ben Needham or Amy Fitzpatrick or even René Hasée's family have legal costs??

[Mo Stache]

Now how many donators thought they would be paying the Mccanns personal expenses ?

If there are people who felt they were donating under false pretences, it would have been up to them to lodge a complaint and retrieve their donation. I am sure the director of the fund would happily have reimbursed them.

Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.

The ones rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to. 

Fund Objectives

 The full objects of the Fund are:
-To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
-To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
-To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

- http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html

[faithlilly]

If there are people who felt they were donating under false pretences, it would have been up to them to lodge a complaint and retrieve their donation. I am sure the director of the fund would happily have reimbursed them.

Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.

The ones rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to. 
- http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html

So where does it say one of the aims of the fund is to finance unnecessary litigation in Portugal and elsewhere ?

Don't you think donators have the right to know the money is being used for the above ?

[AnneGuedes]

Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??

They don't have to be public.
Instead of spending money you earned you give it to a Fund the mission of which is important for you, is it abnegation if part of the Fund's mission is fulfilling your financial needs ?

[Angelo222]

Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.

The onus rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to. 

So is it morally bankrupt to sit there with God knows how many £millions in a bank account while the girl that it was intended to search for endures endless hell?   Assuming she isn't dead of course.

[Albertini]

Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??

Here are the latest accounts.

[Carana]

Do you know why his candidature was rejected ?

Nope. Do you?

Do political parties in Portugal normally give reasons as to why?

[AnneGuedes]

Nope. Do you?

Do political parties in Portugal normally give reasons as to why?

When someone belonging to a party publicly candidates to a public charge (in this case it was a municipality), the party has to justify somehow his rejection. I think it's like this everywhere.
In this case, I googled a bit, the PSD secretary said Mr Amaral's recent past as a police inspector didn't match the internal criteria of strict discrimination between justice and politics.

[Angelo222]

Here are the latest accounts.

Thanks Albertini.

Speaking of moral values, isn't it worthy of note that the auditors are charging £6,300 per annum to audit the accounts.  I find that morally reprehensible.  Greedy pigs!!

[Carana]

When someone belonging to a party publicly candidates to a public charge (in this case it was a municipality), the party has to justify somehow his rejection. I think it's like this everywhere.
In this case, I googled a bit, the PSD secretary said Mr Amaral's recent past as a police inspector didn't match the internal criteria of strict discrimination between justice and politics.

Thanks, Anne.

Is this new, do you think?

Moita Flores, the mayor of Santarem, was ex-PJ, wasn't he?

[Mo Stache]

So where does it say one of the aims of the fund is to finance unnecessary litigation in Portugal and elsewhere ?

Don't you think donators have the right to know the money is being used for the above ?

Read again what I posted earlier. The objectives are clearly stated. The ones rests on the person donating to know what they donating towards. Donors are welcome to contact the fund directors before they donate to make sure what the money will be used for. If assurances can't be given that money will not be used for legal costs, then don't donate! Donors who have already donated and feel that they have given towards something they don't agree with/have not understood the objectives of the fund, can ask for a reimbursement.

Litigation is only unnecessary if there is no purpose to it. In the McCann's vs Amaral litigation as well as McCann's vs Tony Bennett, it was and is clearly demonstrated why legal action is necessary.

 

[faithlilly]

Read again what I posted earlier. The objectives are clearly stated. The ones rests on the person donating to know what they donating towards. Donors are welcome to contact the fund directors before they donate to make sure what the money will be used for. If assurances can't be given that money will not be used for legal costs, then don't donate! Donors who have already donated and feel that they have given towards something they don't agree with/have not understood the objectives of the fund, can ask for a reimbursement.

Litigation is only unnecessary if there is no purpose to it. In the McCann's vs Amaral litigation as well as McCann's vs Tony Bennett, it was and is clearly demonstrated why legal action is necessary.

The objectives are not clearly stated and that is the problem.

[Mo Stache]

The objectives are not clearly stated and that is the problem.

If they not clearly stated don't donate. Simples!