Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?

[G-Unit]

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.

[sadie]

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?

[Lace]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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. 

[Alfred R Jones]

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. 

[sadie]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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