Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[Angelo222]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[mercury]

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

[Alfred R Jones]

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? 

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[mercury]

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?

[Brietta]

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.

[pegasus]

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.

[mercury]

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

[pegasus]

Was the payment if any for appearing on Oprah Show paid into the MFNSLUL fund?

[G-Unit]

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.

[mercury]

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

[G-Unit]

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.